I was thinking of updating this post, but then I noticed I just cant find EDIT-link anymore?! Have anyone noticed same thing (you can't edit older posts)?
BUT, when I wrote this message (update) to this post those EDIT-links came back. Weird, but anyways - Career list is edited now.
NewTroski said:
Jericho said:
Why not just decide if you are noble or not ?
You could make that same argument for anything, e.g: Why not just decide if you have a high Weapon Skill? If you spend points on Weapon Skill, and the adventure is heading for a social situation, that player will be dejected.
I think it's totally fine to use some of you character points on wealth or social class. White Wolf has had a Contacts, Mentors, Allies stats for quite some time now, and they work out fine. Yes, you can gain some of these things through role playing. But for some character ideas, it make sense to start with some of these things.
Every player is going to be good at some things, and bad at other things. If you have a well rounded group, the GM should try to provide a well rounded adventure. If every player creates a combat guy, and that's all they are interested in, nobody is going to have fun if the GM puts them in the middle of a courtly intrigue plot.
I don't really agree here.
WS and all characteristics are bound to be used during the course of an adventure. (Normal ones I mean. Never heard of a campaign without combats of social interaction)
I guess basically what I'm saying here is: why would nobles have overall inferior stats because they had to spend points on social class ? Are all paupers superhuman because they get "bonus creation points" to compensate for their poverty ? I know some systems work like that and I find that not very fun.
Life isn't fair and I firmly believe that being rich and powerful does not entail being weaker or less intelligent.
Character background (and thus social class) must be discussed with the GM, end of story. What you are and where you come from affect the plot and storyline, they shouldn't be "bought". So when I say, why don't you decide if you are a noble or not, I implied "with your GM's approval, of course". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I have never really understood how players could become "jealous" of another player's character because he is richer or more powerful. So I don't see any problem in deciding to be a noble. A noble is a character concept, just as a beggar is. Now if you want to be a noble that was rejected at birth and became beggar (thus your starting career is beggar), why not ? If that's what fancies you, why not ?
Now for people who prefer the randomness of hard core V2 character generation, just stick with "out of the noble career, you are not a noble-born".
Is there an official release list of the core box careers?
...and is Highwayman a career at all in any WHFRP3 product that we know about to date?
Thanks!
Tang86 said:
Is there an official release list of the core box careers?
...and is Highwayman a career at all in any WHFRP3 product that we know about to date?
Thanks!
No official list yet, that's why we have this unofficial list, consisting of "speculation" (the wizard and priest careers) and careers mentioned in the designer diaries and on the card previews.
As for Highwayman, no news yet.
Jericho said:
I guess basically what I'm saying here is: why would nobles have overall inferior stats because they had to spend points on social class ? Are all paupers superhuman because they get "bonus creation points" to compensate for their poverty ? I know some systems work like that and I find that not very fun.
Life isn't fair and I firmly believe that being rich and powerful does not entail being weaker or less intelligent.
Character background (and thus social class) must be discussed with the GM, end of story. What you are and where you come from affect the plot and storyline, they shouldn't be "bought". So when I say, why don't you decide if you are a noble or not, I implied "with your GM's approval, of course". Sorry if that wasn't clear.
First, I agree with you that a character's background should always be discussed with the GM. I also agree that life isn't fair, and just because people are rich doesn't mean they are lacking in other areas.
However, when players are generating characters, I find it much better when everyone is starting from a level play field. So, if it is one person's concept to be a really rich nobleman, that's fine. In this way, another character can feel equal - the noble has more wealth and power, so will do better in circumstances where those things are helpful, but another character might be better in direct confrontation. I find this leads to a higher overall player satisfaction.
I have played some games with random stat generation in which (for instance) the healer is a better fighter than the warrior. The other players then start to feel marginalized and don't have as much fun. So, this is something I endorse for RPG's due a game balance issue, and so that all players can feel like they contribute just as much as everyone else, in their given medium.
Jericho said:
Now for people who prefer the randomness of hard core V2 character generation, just stick with "out of the noble career, you are not a noble-born".
Which is limiting. What if you want to be a noble student, or a noble agitator, or a noble beggar?
All we're saying is that you can chose to be a noble with the new system and, if you want, can give the character extra resources to help reflect that. If you want to be a pauper nobleman, so be it. We haven't seen anything yet that indicates you can't. We're just pointing out that you may not need a seperate 'beggar' or 'nobleman' career. A Commoner with zero resources could make a good beggar, a dilettante with loadsa dosh could fit the old Noble career perfectly fine.
NewTroski said:
I have played some games with random stat generation in which (for instance) the healer is a better fighter than the warrior. The other players then start to feel marginalized and don't have as much fun. So, this is something I endorse for RPG's due a game balance issue, and so that all players can feel like they contribute just as much as everyone else, in their given medium.
I agree with you here, though most times the problem is caused more by players and GMs than by the character's stats. There are players who are very eager to participate, always have something to say and always want to be in the middle of the action, while others are more shy or need more time to come up with interesting ideas.
As a GM, it is good to keep an eye for this and try to gently poke the less participative players into action and try to limit the amount of spotlight given to the most extroverted types (though it's better not to overdo this, to avoid annoying both the talkative and meditative players). Also, if the GM sees one character has been very unlucky (or even too lucky) with the stats rolls, he could talk with the players and try balancing the situation a bit.
I see both random-stats and buy-stats systems as having their problems. Random rolls can bring into the game all manner of strange characters (as in real life) but can marginalize unlucky players. Buy-stats systems have the danger of giving only standard "optimised characters" plus you still can have issues with unbalanced careers...
Myself, I prefer random character creation. I have used it in my WFRP 2nd edition campaigns and only allowed Shallya's Mercy to those that deserved it due to very bad rolls (once I even allowed one player to reroll two stats). I like a lot the strange results you come up with, as they really add to the grim of WFRP.
I like random character generation, with a some method to modify your stats a bit. The best example is HackMaster Basic: if you are hardcore (or threw lucky values), and leave your stats as they were, you get more Build Points (which could be used to increase them a bit), if you swap two stats, you gain half the amount (which is still quite reasonable), and if you're a whining *****, you can put your scores on your abilities as you wish, but don't expect any extra BPs for doing so. Plain and simple.
macd21 said:
Then how would you represent an impoverished Noble? The kind of second son of a second son of a minor noble that would be up for making some quick money or need to gain a reputation adventuring? You seem to be simplifying the concept to MONEY = NOBLE, when in previous games this clearly wasn't the case. Yes a Noble started with more cash than anyone else but not a huge amount more. In WFRPv2 For example a Road Warden with his Light Warhorse and Pistol actually has equipment worth a lot more than a Noble's basic trappings.
Foolishboy said:
macd21 said:
Then how would you represent an impoverished Noble? The kind of second son of a second son of a minor noble that would be up for making some quick money or need to gain a reputation adventuring? You seem to be simplifying the concept to MONEY = NOBLE, when in previous games this clearly wasn't the case. Yes a Noble started with more cash than anyone else but not a huge amount more. In WFRPv2 For example a Road Warden with his Light Warhorse and Pistol actually has equipment worth a lot more than a Noble's basic trappings.
Easy: Dilettante without any money. Or another career with little/no money. I'm not saying money = noble, I'm pointing out that you don't necessarily need a seperate Noble career to play a noble character, nor do you need a beggar career to play a beggar.
macd21 said:
Foolishboy said:
macd21 said:
Then how would you represent an impoverished Noble? The kind of second son of a second son of a minor noble that would be up for making some quick money or need to gain a reputation adventuring? You seem to be simplifying the concept to MONEY = NOBLE, when in previous games this clearly wasn't the case. Yes a Noble started with more cash than anyone else but not a huge amount more. In WFRPv2 For example a Road Warden with his Light Warhorse and Pistol actually has equipment worth a lot more than a Noble's basic trappings.
Easy: Dilettante without any money. Or another career with little/no money. I'm not saying money = noble, I'm pointing out that you don't necessarily need a seperate Noble career to play a noble character, nor do you need a beggar career to play a beggar.
Exactly. Noble represents not a career, but a social and economic class and no other social and economic class is WFRP is represented by a single career. There is no "criminal, poor worker, or middle class" career. Instead we have thieves, thugs, peasants, servants, tradesman and so on.
Cynical Cat said:
Exactly. Noble represents not a career, but a social and economic class and no other social and economic class is WFRP is represented by a single career. There is no "criminal, poor worker, or middle class" career. Instead we have thieves, thugs, peasants, servants, tradesman and so on.
Add Agent and Gambler to the list.
jadrax said:
Cynical Cat said:
Exactly. Noble represents not a career, but a social and economic class and no other social and economic class is WFRP is represented by a single career. There is no "criminal, poor worker, or middle class" career. Instead we have thieves, thugs, peasants, servants, tradesman and so on.
No it doesn't, not the career anyway. Noble represnts a type of Noble Lifestyle. The career is what you do, not who you were born. Nobles that study are Students and nobles that are entering the militery are Squires. If you not a stay at home rake type Noble, then you are not in the Noble Career.
So tell me this -
How do you differentiate between a Student who was picked by the Academy from a family of sheepherders, and a Student who is the eigth son of an Electorate?
That's what I always felt was the weakest point in older versions of WHFR that other RP games did well. By allowing players to chose background options, they can easily make that distinction, because characters may invest in Status and Connections (the son of a Noble family) while other characters can pick Allies and put the rest of their points into the skills sheepherders would have.
Dilettante is a great example of someone who excels in being a hanger-on. Whether they are truly a member of a noble house in the Empire should strictly be a few tweeks instead of an entire career. Thus, should a character truly rise to the occasion such as our blessed Emperor, he/she is aptly rewarded (by both the GM and an in-game mechanic) with nobility. Or if they are a poor example of a lout with no manners or redeemable qualities, that can be removed without forcing a career change on the player.
NezziR said:
Add Agent and Gambler to the list.
Agent?! (this is new - altough it is probably good-old SPY?). Where did you get these?
jackdays said:
NezziR said:
Add Agent and Gambler to the list.
Agent?! (this is new - altough it is probably good-old SPY?). Where did you get these?
Check out the news page.
jadrax said:
Cynical Cat said:
Exactly. Noble represents not a career, but a social and economic class and no other social and economic class is WFRP is represented by a single career. There is no "criminal, poor worker, or middle class" career. Instead we have thieves, thugs, peasants, servants, tradesman and so on.
No it doesn't, not the career anyway. Noble represnts a type of Noble Lifestyle. The career is what you do, not who you were born. Nobles that study are Students and nobles that are entering the militery are Squires. If you not a stay at home rake type Noble, then you are not in the Noble Career.
Then the career in question isn't noble, it's rake. I have no objection to a rake career. It's just as appropriate for a character from a noble background as squire, dilettante, student, lady in waiting, or courtier.
Cynical Cat said:
jadrax said:
Cynical Cat said:
Exactly. Noble represents not a career, but a social and economic class and no other social and economic class is WFRP is represented by a single career. There is no "criminal, poor worker, or middle class" career. Instead we have thieves, thugs, peasants, servants, tradesman and so on.
No it doesn't, not the career anyway. Noble represnts a type of Noble Lifestyle. The career is what you do, not who you were born. Nobles that study are Students and nobles that are entering the militery are Squires. If you not a stay at home rake type Noble, then you are not in the Noble Career.
Then the career in question isn't noble, it's rake. I have no objection to a rake career. It's just as appropriate for a character from a noble background as squire, dilettante, student, lady in waiting, or courtier.
The idea of this thread was to collect the WFRP3 CoreBox Careers what we know. But half of this thread has turned to interesting noble debate. I'm not saying this isnt good stuff.
Easiest way to settle this would be that there is Social Classes, and one of them is Noble. Then Career is different matter. BUT in the WFRP2 for example dont have social classes in actual Game Rules, it has Noble Career (and also Courtier). And like Jadrax said - These are Nobles that live the life of Noble. Not specialist Nobles that become Knights or Priests.
Another way to put this. IF you would have Social Class and there Noble character. And this noble would be rich, landed noble ruling alot of people. He/she doesnt do anything, doesnt specialize anything. Hell, its just barely that this noble can even read/write (he/she doesnt really have patiens to read books or study). This noble doesnt DO ANYTHING (not even play any instrument or do poetry). Doesnt like physical stuff or weapon practise. Hates rural areas and even horses. He/she just "hangs-around" with his/her fellow nobles in the court in the city. Sometimes they might do that other times something else. Only thing they like is to party and get drunk... SO, what career should this noble then have? Storyteller?
jackdays said:
Another way to put this. IF you would have Social Class and there Noble character. And this noble would be rich, landed noble ruling alot of people. He/she doesnt do anything, doesnt specialize anything. Hell, its just barely that this noble can even read/write (he/she doesnt really have patiens to read books or study). This noble doesnt DO ANYTHING (not even play any instrument or do poetry). Doesnt like physical stuff or weapon practise. Hates rural areas and even horses. He/she just "hangs-around" with his/her fellow nobles in the court in the city. Sometimes they might do that other times something else. Only thing they like is to party and get drunk... SO, what career should this noble then have? Storyteller?
A dilettante or a rogue career.
jackdays said:
Darthvegeta800 said:
So things like Knights, Witch Hunters, noblemen etc won't be playable in the coreset? Seems a lot of careers are very atypical for rpg starting rules.
Well, there is still alot of room (40) for Witch-hunter and Knight (which probably are Advanced careers). And I like to believe they would be there. But you never know...
Nobles - Well, hard to say. If you take 40 careers from the WFRP2 corebook (or even better - from the Career Compendium), which ones would you take? Probably careers like Noble, Tradesman, Woodsman, Chargoal-Burner, Lamb-Lighter...etc. are not in that list, which is sad.
Aaah thanks. So in this setting/rule system usually one starts with a more 'normal' class. So someone who'd play a Knight or the likes would start as a squire or some sort of warrior?
To follow up on this Noble thread...
The Apocrypha Now (p. 15-20) for v1 works very well and is very playable! Noble careers are related to title rank (Elector being rank 5), and you can have another career on the side just as you can for the Monk career. Essentially, you just complete your Noble career at a certain rank and then goes on completing some other careers, while you gather enough political influence via warfare, social intrigue or political power to be (self-)promoted to the next Noble career rank. Someone has to be the Power behind the Throne, you know...
Darthvegeta800 said:
Aaah thanks. So in this setting/rule system usually one starts with a more 'normal' class. So someone who'd play a Knight or the likes would start as a squire or some sort of warrior?
Correct. Knight would be an advanced career. Same as you start off as an apprentice wizard (acolyte?) before becoming a wizard proper.
macd21 said:
Darthvegeta800 said:
Aaah thanks. So in this setting/rule system usually one starts with a more 'normal' class. So someone who'd play a Knight or the likes would start as a squire or some sort of warrior?
Correct. Knight would be an advanced career. Same as you start off as an apprentice wizard (acolyte?) before becoming a wizard proper.
This new system moving from carere to a another is very innovative. We dont need anymore lists of Exits&Entries!!! Which were always undated after few sourcebooks with new careers. You just match the "words" and see how much do you have to pay what ever career you choose to go next.
BUT, the interesting part is how do you switch to advanced career? There probably should be some requirements? Otherwise some Gambler could become Giant Slayer suddenly (might cost alot, but still).
I was just thinking (just speculation), that could it be, that there are lesser amount of Advanced careers in the new system?!? I mean, in WFRP2 you needed to move to Advanced Careers to gain Characteristics bonuses more than +10 (in few rare cases +15). But maybe here it is more how much you collect certain special abilities. In one basic career you gain X amount and in second (similar) you can Y amount more. In some careers you need to move to Advanced to gain some specialty that only advanced persons in that career-path can gain (say for example Apprentice Wizards becomes Wizard, which is advanced career, and this way gains access to better spells).
This way even Knight could be basic career now... Remember all, this is not based on any real info, just speculation.
jackdays said:
BUT, the interesting part is how do you switch to advanced career? There probably should be some requirements? Otherwise some Gambler could become Giant Slayer suddenly (might cost alot, but still).
Yes, a gambler could move straight to Giant Slayer, as far as I can tell. However, it probably wouldn't be a good idea. He'd probably be better off going to trollslayer. If you look at the cards I think that both gambler and trollslayer have the 'Basic' Keyword. That right there would reduce the amount of xp needed to move to the career by one. (I assume that Giantslayer will have the "Advance" Keyword). A lot of the advances that you can get as a giant slayer can probably be bought as a trollslayer as well. Once you finish the trollslayer career you can move on to giantslayer for 1xp.
Basically, while you could go from a basic career to giantslayer, it probably costs you more xp for the same number of advances. On the other hand, if you were a
Dwarf
in an
Advanced
Combat
career, you can go to Giantslayer straight away. This makes sense, as going to trollslayer is probably a waste of time for you. By now you can probably kill trolls in your sleep. Jump straight to slaying giants
Actually, I've been wondering about another question - what will the policy be on leaving the slayer career path? Can you go from trollslayer to thief? Or do you have to go to the Giantslayer career?