so now what do you think now?

First, I have never played v1 or v2 but it wasnt from lack of wanting to. I have both editions of the rules, and they both looked cool. also, I dont have a history with the game and a bookshelf of books. so Im not angry and I dont have a whole lot of speculative hatred on this...but I did with 4e D&D so I totally understand the haters

But for what its worth, I am very optimistic especially since the dice system was explained. I'm a sucker for crazy looking dice.

I'm a special education teacher and I know a few things about this and that. visual perception or lack of it, levels of abstract thought that kind of thing. I think its high time for a visual resolution system instead of a numerical. It can possiblely cut down on the abstraction of the mechanics. Instead of remembering to add 10 % to this roll for this circumstance, everything is referenced on the card and you add a dice. that can make a game that can move a bit quicker. The older i get the less math i want to do, the less things i want to remember. (how do i charge, can I parry or dodge, ok how do i do that?, was that a half action or a full action, etc) I hope the new version helps cut down on a lot of that

What I want from a designer diary is to get a look at each type of card, an example of combat, and how they expect you to use the cardboard minis since they explicitly stated that this wasnt a mini game. And more importantly how easy is this game to GM?

cheers

I agree with you on abstraction and visual aids to speed play. My 4E rules, which I just sold, slowed a game turn so much, and status markers all had to be home made. I like the WHFRP3 card system that lets you add a status card to a PC. One look at your Player card/sheet and you know what's going on - and they cards come with the box!

I am looking forward to 3rd edition more now. I think the new system should drop into the background, yes lots of visual aids which others seem to believe will detract from the roleplaying side of the game but I think they will help immersion in the game, no flicking through the rule book for modifiers or to look up how certain actions work.

I agree that visual aids will speed up game flow.

Usually I do myself character sheet that implements additions/notes that will help players during game.

In case I add house rules, or whatever infos, that is needed during the game sessions.

I don't know if this cards will speed up play (or hinder it) but to me this is not such a big breakthru. In addition all this trinkets can capture the focus of the players.

We'll see.

My interest in v3 continues to slip away, and my players have stopped even bothering to check for updates. Instead they've decided what our next campaign is going to be (first session was yesturday to be exact) and don't want to hear anything new about it. They're acting like FFG and WFRP 3e don't exist.

Increasingly uninterested, to many cards, dice and to much faffing around. I've taken to skim reading the diaries and everything I see just makes the game less appealing to me.

Good luck but I'll stick with 2nd edition

[ DELETED BY ADMIN - INAPPROPRIATE ]

Necronomicus said:

Isn't that a stock quote from pretty much any old person?

"Kids these days are all so blablablablablabla. *standardized rants and whining induced by the bitterness of growing old*"

Yet still, for all the declining intelligence and ability of each following generation we have computers, modern medicine, laser surgery, robotics, iPod's etc. etc.

Could you say that mankind had the very same things for, let's say 50 years ago?

It's funny how old people (niot saying that YOU must be old, but based on your claims you have certainly set up for the "old" mindset) always claim that mankind is growing dumber or "weaker" with every new generation, yet still groundbreaking achievements are made at a regular interval.

Oh well, perhaps these iPods, computers and what not just... Fell out of the sky? Surely these dumber and weaker generations can't be responsible for such innovations now can they?

//Varnias Tybalt - this must have been my most idealistic and positive post I've ever made. Usually im more inclined to misanthropic and nihilistic rants about the futility and worthlessness of humanity in general. But for once, I got to play the white knight! Who would've thunk it?

I figured someone would say something like this. it was pretty troll worthy. and forums are filled with cheap shot artists. It's amazing how we have the ability and priveledge to discuss things with people all over the world, but it often turns into something pretty lame. teaching kids that nobody gives a crap about is what i do for a living and I wake up fired up and ready to go everyday. its a cool way to earn a paycheck.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the cards and the dice in this game. its not dumbed down. Its just an easy way to internalise the rules and the other abstract concepts of the game so people can learn it faster. sure we can do it the old way by flipping through books and consulting tables, but why should we? production values have changed since 1986. anything that is new and intelligently designed is all of a sudden dumbed down. anything that attempts to be quicker and smoother is all the sudden dumbed down. anything thats quicker to learn and trys to draw people under 30 is all the sudden dumbed down

the fact of the matter is that 2nd edition WHFRP was a RPGer's RPG. it wasnt a good entry point for the new guy. I suspect that FFG wanted an entry point RPG with a name behind it and they got it.

As far as the new mechanics the dice and cards and what have you, they are a symptom of the times. Friend, I remember playing a basic D&D magic user with 2 hit points, a dagger, and a sleep spell. I had fun with it when I was 17 years old. we didnt know any better. D&D was our video game. we played the game. we died, we rolled up. we died again. when we finally hit 3rd level we felt like god's but today's teenager probably expects a little bit more from a game. and that's what's going to keep this hobby alive is the new blood.

-"It's amazing how we have the ability and priveledge to discuss things with people all over the world, but it often turns into something pretty lame. "

I do believe the band Slipknot wrote a song called "People = ****". And it's true! No matter where you turn in the world, people are all the same.

(and suddenly Varnias slipped back into misanthropic-mode again. Oh well, "white knight" mode was fun the short while it lasted )

-"anything that is new and intelligently designed is all of a sudden dumbed down. anything that attempts to be quicker and smoother is all the sudden dumbed down. anything thats quicker to learn and trys to draw people under 30 is all the sudden dumbed down."

Im guessing that personal insecurities might be the culprit here. I mean, if the game might be easy to understand, even for kids, then someone might confuse the adult players for being kids/childish. Of course, that's just a guess on my part, but I'd like to inform anyone who feel hit by this comment that adults don't exist.

If thre's one thing I've definetly learned from growing up it is that pretty much all so called "adults" are children in disguise. They hide themselves behind social norms and proper behaviours, yet still most of them act in a really childish manner. It's just that stupid stuff like driving under the influence of alcohol, cheating on your spouses, start fights with total strangers while drunk, playing sports, playing "grown up make-believe" (meaning "sexual roleplay" ) etc. etc. is considered to be "adult" behaviour only because some aspects of it are not allowed for children to engage in (sex, drinking, driving etc.). But if you analyze it, it's clear as day that it's all about childlike, irresponsible and sometimes playful behaviour.

So if you're one of those neurotics im refering too, that still considers the stuff I've mentioned to be "adult behaviour", then really why would it be "less adult" to play games which include aspects that younger people can understand and play themselves? Is it because games involving cards, dice with symbols rather than numbers and other "childish" things don't include or aren't associated with sex or alcoholic beverages? If that's the case I'd advise you to expand your horizons a bit. There's more to life than getting laid and getting drunk! (and suddenly the sound of inumerable jaws, belonging to fratboys and other adolescents, dropping to the floor could be heard booming across the world...)

People feeling hit by these remarks don't need to answer them if they don't feel like it. That goes for the same people NOT feeling hit, because I wasn't really refering to you at all.

-"the fact of the matter is that 2nd edition WHFRP was a RPGer's RPG. it wasnt a good entry point for the new guy. I suspect that FFG wanted an entry point RPG with a name behind it and they got it."

No! How can you say that? FFG care only about profit! There's not a single passionate roleplayer among their ranks. It's only comprised of faceless corporate drones who haven't even played such a basic game as Pong and who are just analyzing facts and diagrams of what was "cool" last year and churn out sub-standard and crappy products based on these figures in hopes of squeezing out a few extra bucks from their customer demographic. EVERYBODY knows that!... Oh wait a minute.

This makes me sad.

The OP comments on what he sees as the benefits of a visual resolution system and also gives us some background on himself to get an idea on why he might have some insight into this. The response to say the game has been dumbed down just does not follow.

chojun said:

You say that like it's a bad thing. WFRP was an out an out rpg how terrible.

chojun said:

Say what you like, but WFRPv2 attracted a lot of new people and while it did turn off a reasonably large section of the WFRPv1 fanbase the majority did convert eventually. On that note the big draw of WFRPv2 was new information, will FFG learn from this? Based on the fact that the Core Box only seems to concentrate on the Reikland I'm not sure if FFG aren't just going to reprint the same old material and that would be a major turn-off for the remanents of the existing fanbase.

chojun said:

On this we agree, although I think money was the primary reason for launching this game as a new edition. I think FFG did want to produce a game that card and board gamers would be interested in as well as the traditional roleplayers. A hybrid of a roleplaying game and a boardgame is nothing new, there has been a lot of crossover between the two in the past. FFG did however need a known name on the box or else the game would have sunk without a trace. Before having a go at me, ask yourself a question if this game was set in a generic fantasy world devised by FFG would you be interested in the game? I can honestly say that had this game not been Warhammer (one of my favourite rgp settings) I wouldn't look twice at it, as it is I'm probably going to buy it and give it a chance.

Foolishboy said:

For me, yes. I've played lots of WHFRP starting with the 1st ed core book and onwards and I've always had a lot of fun. However, since Dark Heresy was released me and my groups focus has been concentrated on that. Now with the 3rd edition on the horizon I'm getting really excited about trying it out, and it's not thanks to the setting (which has been a favourite for a long time and thus not a factor) but rather because of the new system.

I think this new way (well...) of interacting with the game looks really cool and it seems to take some of the load off the GM. Also it seems to be able to bring the players into the storytelling in a way that I would gladly welcome.

Foolishboy said:

Possibly - it would depend on the setting. Setting is usually more important to me than system. I've played WFRP for years despite the poor system, after all. If the v3 system was attached to a poor setting then I probably wouldn't play it, no matter how good the system was.

I'm still excited!

My players, though... well, some aren't, some are apathetic ("rules are unimportant, roleplaying is what is important").

Ah well. Unless their enthusiasm increases, I won't be getting it, even though I really really want to.

Foolishboy said:

sorry, I think that i didnt articulate this point very well. From what I know about WFRP is that some people get into it after they have issues with D&D. It's obviously a superior game. D&D has brand strength; its the walmart of RPGs.

as far as FFG wanting to make money off of it, heck yeah they do. They got bills to pay, too. I saw a job advertisment for a game designer for FFG and they only make like 26 grand a year. Thats not a whole lot to raise a family on. when they got a hold of the rights to WFRP, you better believe they were gonna lift the hood and tinker around a bit. this has the potential to bring in some money.

the unfortuntate thing about the RPG industry is that they have to kill something and bring it back from the dead to make money off of it. most of the second edition money went somewhere else, green ronin, BI,... whereever.

unfortunately we dont live in some mythical country where the government subsidizes old editions of RPGs.

thanks for the intelligent discussion.

My opinion has changed, but it hasn't got any better I'm afraid.

My original reaction was a knee-jerk "what the hell are they thinking of..." based purely on the press release. I leapt to some conclusions and ranted a bit and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Now that they've started releasing some actual information, I still don't like it.

I'll admit that some of the game mechanics sound interesting, but for me they're outweighed by all the problems I can see and there're more problems with every new bit of information. I haven't made up my mind on the dice yet, they could be revolutionary or they could be hideously overcomplicated and we won't know until we actually get to try them.

This game requires space to play. You really need to have all the players round a table, and a sizable table at that, so that they have room to lay out all the various components that they're using. Stance tracker, career sheet with various attached cards, tokens, the party sheet with attached cards and more. This is no longer a game that you can play from the back of a book balanced on your knees, which means it's one that my group physically can't play unless one of us moves house and buys a bigger table.

All the extra components means more things that can be lost. And unlike D&D 4E, it doesn't look like the information on the cards will be reproduced anywhere else so if you lose one it's lost. Dice are less of an issue, you can always add sticky labels to a regular D8 or whatever and draw the symbols on.

I don't like the approach being taken with the background. Reiklander humans, dwarfs from a single hold (that has never been mentioned in the background before unless I'm remembering it wrong) and no halflings. It seems like the game will be aimed at a must smaller area of the Old World, possibly just Altdorf and its environs, and if this is the case it would take away the main reason I play WFRP in the first place.The Warhammer World is one of the best realised campaign settings in existence, and limiting your scope to one tiny corner of it just seems wrong.

I don't like the lack of character options. 30 careers in the core box, which includes basic and advanced careers seems like a woefully small number to me.

I don't like the fact that your choice of career limits your roleplaying options, at least initially, just through the fact that it dictates what stances are available to you. This kind of thing should be based on your character's personality, not their profession.

Personally, I don't care about the price. It's a drop in the ocean compared to what I tend to spend on games anyway. However most of my players tend to like owning their own copy of the rules so that they know what they're doing when they play, and for them $100 is prohibitively expensive. Yes it's the same price as buying the 3 D&D core books, but if you want to you can just buy the PHB for D&D which is a lot cheaper and you don't have that option here. Plus WFRP3 will have VAT on it, which makes it more expensive still.

So yeah, still not interested.

I'd be more interested if this wasn't Warhammer. If it was some generic fantasy background, and if you could use the new mechanics without needing all that room to lay out components, then I'd definitely be interested enough to give it a try.

However the limited background, lack of character options and the necessity of all the components just makes this a "no" for me.

I still like what I'm seeing. Haven't had any major turnoffs yet.

ChaosChild said:

I see this sentiment aired periodically and I just wanted to say that I don't think the Stance meter interferes with your roleplaying at all. Tying a character's experience and familiarity with recklessness/caution to his career is a simple design choice that roots the mechanic in the setting. Opinions will vary as to whether its a valid way of going about it or not, and that's cool with me. I personally like that decision and find that it makes sense to me. Doesn't matter though. The part that I don't understand though is the feeling that you are limited in your character realization because of it. Every single career can operate as cautiously as you'd like to roleplay it out. All the system is doing is saying that certain folks have more experience with cautious/reckless actions and thus can gain more from that behaviour.

This probably needs to be in its own thread though...

donbaloo said:

ChaosChild said:

I am feeling completely opposite. I stated off, like you did, quite skeptical about a new edition. 2e was great, why change it and what's up with all the components? Is this a boardgame now?

However, the more I see about this new edition, the more I like it and the more excited I am about it.

Let me try to talk about your concerns:

SPACE: I suppose it might take up more space, assuming that you lay everything out. Of course, nothing prevents you from just stacking your cards together, and putting them on your career sheet, etc to minimize the space needed. My group already uses a big table since we use miniatures, so we've got some room. Still, if your group doesn't play where there's space, you could indeed end up having some issues. Perhaps clearing some floor space and playing on the floor?

LOST COMPONENTS: Very true, although as of yet there is no official word if the card information will also be summarized in a book. Regardless, I expect within a week or two of the game coming out that someone will provide a .pdf or other list of cards and their information. Jay did say in the seminar video that the cards are visual tools to aid gameplay.

BACKGROUND: There is plenty of material to allow settings other than Reikland. I expect that this area is just the initial focus of the core set and expansions will add to it, just as in every other RPG. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from running a game in a different area of the world. The Core Set could only focus its information on a limited area, and where better than the core of the Empire? It is actually no surprise to me that they recommend dwarves from a specific younger hold. It has already been mentioned in WFRP that usually only younger dwarves interact with humans from the Empire. I doubt there is anything actually rule-specific that prevents a dwarf PC from being from somewhere else. I expect, similar to the setting, they simply chose a single specific hold to make things easier and allow them to provide detailed background information about the hold. As for halflings, well, I honestly don't care for them. They are definitely planned for an expansion, and I expect it won't take too long for that expansion to come out either. Again, this is a Core Set. It is, of course, focused on a small area to allow FFG to give detailed information (in its limited space) about that area. There is plenty of 2e sourcebooks that still have usable information about other parts of the world.

CHARACTER OPTIONS: I agree, it seems a bit small ... but it is more than a lot of other RPGS. Also, there are additional careers in the Toolkit, which is coming out at the same time as the Core set. So ... I don't think you're as limited as you think.

ROLEPLAY: I think you have the wrong impression of the stance mechanic. It is a representation for how the PC approaches a task, and is a mechanic to allow a character to change dice when attempting to accomplish tasks. It can be changed, from my understanding, by the player before every roll for every task. It is in no way a mechanic to force roleplay. Additionally, it was mentioned with the recent diary, that careers can purchase additional stance pieces, so a Troll Slayer could buy conservative stance pieces, they just cost advance points. Mechanically, a Troll Slayer doesn't tend to be a cautious or methodical thinker/doer ... for them cautious might be being at neutral or a single reckless stance. I think, rather than considering the stance as 'forcing' a player to roleplay, you might instead consider stances as a guide to how the typical person of that career would act. The PCs are PCs, they are not required to roleplay to match their stance exactly. Rather, the stance is a mechanical means to allow the player to alter the dice they use for a roll.

COST: Indeed, I think this is probably the big hurdle. Especially, as you pointed out, for a player that just wants the rules. Perhaps FFG will create a smaller 'player set', or perhaps FFG will allow for purchase of individual books and cards. I hope so. Of course, the book will give you the basics of how to play, but won't give you any of the true player information, so that is included on the career cards and action cards, etc, so a player really needs more than just the book to play.

dvang said:

See the issue with your reply? Either they are optional, or they aren't.

ragnar63 said:

Hence why I said "at least initially" in my post.

Maybe I am missing the point on stances but it seems to me that the whole idea is to provide an in-game mechanism to reflect the attitude that the PCs have to their situation. Linking the possible options to your career seems like a mistake in most cases (slayers really shouldn't have a conservative option imho). Not all gamblers are inherently reckless, just how reckless you decide to play your character should be just that; your decision.

This is just one of those things that really shouldn't be linked to your career. Giving players a free choice of 4 stance pieces would be a better option.

It could pretty easily be argued that gambling is inherently reckless,since there is always chance you will lose something. If you are a more cautious gambler, than you probably won't make very big bets and use your cautious stance.

I don't really understand the space issue. I've had 5 people packed into somebody's tiny dorm room to play RPGs. We had no table, the desks were covered with computers and homework. We also had boxes of pizza and snacks in various places. We made it work.

I also don't really see components being lost as an issue either. Character sheets from other games can be lost too. Books can be torn, or have things spilled on them. Stuff happens, I don't really think it's a game system's fault when it does. Use more cautious stance dice when you pack up the game and it won't be a problem

ChaosChild said:

How reckless to be is the players decision, but at the same time you have to consider the character's experience. It isn't so much about personality as familiarity with situations in which a cautious (or reckless) aproach is necessary. Someone who works in a career that requires patience, calm and rational thinking will be good in situations where that kind of thinking is necessary, even if he usually prefers to be reckless. Someone who works in a career that requires split second decision making based on gut-instincts will be good when a reckless stance is called for, but (again), may prefere to be cautious the rest of the time.

NewTroski said:

Did the game you were playing have 30 different dice, hundreds of cards stress meters, several boards and character sheets per person etc..?