That game was Vampire, but we had quite a bit of stuff. Obviously everybody had their own character sheet, and each person had around 10 dice. We also had real-world props that we used. Our GM used Vampire cards from the card game as portraits for NPCs, so we could easily picture people. We were constantly fiddling with the cards and arranging them according to our various theories about the political power in the city. So, maybe not quite as much but a comparable amount of stuff.

Maybe I'm weird though; I still have all the pieces from some of the toys I had as a child. I think if you're careful, it's not a problem.

@ Jarl : Not really. Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. The book doesn't have detailed information about specific characters and careers. Some of the cards, such as those for effects like Blindness, most likely ARE in the rules and the cards are not really necessary. It's possible the rules might have an appendix list of Core Set actions/talents, but for ease of play in either case, the cards are highly preferred. There is, however, nothing stopping a player from making their own paper list/reference sheet or writing down on a piece of paper all their PC's action card information and obviating the need to use the cards. After all, most RPGs have you write that information down on the character sheet anyway. WFRP 3e just gives you handy cards so you don't have to transcribe that information from the rulebook to your PC sheet if you don't want, but it doesn't prevent you from doing so either. So ... they are optional to use.

@ Chaoschild : Well, it depends on how you look at what the stances mean. Certain careers draw a certain temperment, so the stance pieces give a general guideline to how the career, by its very nature, functions. Are you *really* saying you think a typical player can/should choose a Trollslayer, but it's ok if they choose 4 conservative stance pieces? Why are they playing a Trollslayer then? Or, a scholar that chooses 4 reckless stance pieces? That's smacks to me of a one-off GM decision, not the norm. This is an RPG, and the GM is the final arbitrator. If you want the players to choose their stance pieces because you want them to be able to roleplay a temperment completely opposite their career, then you can certainly let them do so. However, I'll reiterate, that most careers draw a certain range of personalities, which is represented loosely, but appropriately, by the stance meter. The default/initial stance meter can represent a guide for the general temperment of a career. If a player truly wishes to move outside these bounds, they can purchase additional stance pieces or move into another career. Or, as a GM, allow players to shift their starting stance pieces, etc. For rules purposes, however, it makes perfect sense to provide default/initial stance settings for careers, if nothing else but as a means to provide additional information about how a career works. Regardless of anything else, there is nothing stopping the player from roleplaying their character anyway they see fit, the only impact the stance mechanic truly has is what kind of dice (and how many) they can swap into a skill check. A player could play a conservative trollslayer, yet still throw a bunch of reckless dice on a test, or if they truly wanted the dice to mimic their roleplaying (like a conservative trollslayer), throw only attribute dice and no reckless dice. For a trollslayer, no reckless dice *is* quite conservative.

@Foolishboy : Well, first of all, WFRP3e only has what, 7 different types of dice? (blue, red, green, purple, white, black, yellow) Hmm, D&D has d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20. So 6 types. The career boards don't appear to be mandatory, merely helpful aids (even more so than the cards). You could probably just transcribe the majority of the information from the careers and cards onto paper, just like you'd have to do with any other RPG, if you want to save space. As for the stance meter, it doesn't look like it takes up much room. Regardless, again you could probably have it on a piece of paper instead and make marks or use a paperclip to keep track of which box is current. So ... lots of suggestions on ways to reduce space without hurting the game or gameplay if you don't have all the available space to have all the visual aids present.

dvang said:

Yes, or put another way: the information is mandatory, the cards are not. Memorise it, write it on paper, whatever. They put it on a card instead of in the book; either way you need the rules.

dvang said:

A few things to consider though:

- While WFRP 3e may only have one more dice type than D&D (7 vs 6), it looks like it will have more dice over all. For me, this makes it less attractive than D&D, and I don't particularly care for D&D. WFRP 1e was attractive to me in that it only required, what, two dice types - d10 and d6, and 2e went even further, meaning I only need d10s.

- most gamers I know all like to have their own dice that are distinctive from the dice of the player's around them. Going to be hard to do that with this edition, since the colors of the dice are so integral to the game system.

- some gamers, including myself, and several others I've gamed with, like dice enough that we like to buy seperate dice for each game, and sometimes even for each army for wargames, and for each PCs. Every PC I play has their own set of dice - it's part of their "character". Yeah, I know, for the most part, one set of dice is just like another, but for me, seeing the distinctive dice for a particular PC in front of me tells me immediately what character I'm playing, and helps keep me in character.

kristof65 said:

Ah, the posessive player syndrome, something which I and most of the players in my group are afflicted with. Then again this might solve some isues. for instance, every play session we've had have lead to that I have to lend some dice for some other who didn't bring their own for that particular session, which makes it a bit hard to keep track of which dice or mine and which dice is theirs.

This issue might be solved completely by a game like this since everyone is pretty much forced to use the dice out of the box rather than bringing their own.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Been a long time since I've had a problem with the lending of dice - I have so many now, that at my abode, there are plenty of sets of loaner dice. I usually have a spare set or two with me if we're playing somewhere else.

However, I do so another possible issue related to the possesive player syndrome and WFRP 3e, once the dice packs become available - how will you know who's die it is? Not a problem when everyone has different enough dice, but I've seen arguments over who's 40k scatter die is who's at clean up time among my mini gaming groups.

My group is pretty much the opposite. I already have a bunch of dice, so nobody else bothered to get their own. One guy eventually did, because he was playing another game with friends when he went back home. Depending on how interest goes for v3, I may get one extra dice set for convenience, but it may not be necessary with the number of starter dice.

NewTroski said:

Well, considering I think that (on a good day) when everyone brought their dice, we probably have enough dice for three to five simultanious games going on. The only reason why is because most of us likes to have our own bunch of dice in front of us instead of having to lean over the table and getting dice resting on the other side by the last person using them.

I think it's pretty much the same for all gaming groups. It's not that the players NEED their own personal dice, it's only the fact that they like it. But you'd have to be a really whiney b*tch (to be harsh but frank) if you flat out refuse to play a game that pretty much demands that you have to share dice with the others in the group.

One thing that I instituted in our games is the "dice box." All rolls are made in the box, whoever is currently acting gets handed the box, so the dice are already in there. I just use the top of a board game box or an old WH40K battalion box lid. One guy has a habit of rolling pretty wildly, sending dice careening, and rolling into a box helps with that quite a bit.

I think if other people implemented this simple system, it would solve a lot of the lost dice/ sharing dice worries. Hopefully the v3 set comes in the right kind of box, so you can use the lid in this fashion. Then they can add that to the list of accessories included in the game!

I will reserve judgment until I've gone through at least three sessions with my game group.

NewTroski said:

A good idea, I'll try it in my campaigns to see how it works.

NewTroski said:

I have made dice rolling boxes by taking a circular metal fruit-cake or cookie tin, removing the lid, and cutting out a foam rubber mouse pad to fit the bottom of the tin. The tin contains wild dice throws and the mouse pad cut-out cushions the dice and gives them a bit of a bounce effect as well.

After game play is over, just store the dice in the tin.

I have a lot of pieces from Dwarven Forge . I made a hexagon shaped room (with doors) and glued it all to a heavy cardboard base. I then covered another piece with felt as well as the bottom. It makes a really nice dice box and it can still be used as a room (hence the doors) if I need it.

NewTroski said:

Instead of using diceboxes, I prefer to educate my players to roll fast. So the time span you are handing over your dice box, my player would already have rolled his dies and interpreted the effect. Using Savage Worlds for Warhammer games we have even a lot of different dice (from d4 to d12) but an extremely fast resolution for everything. After seeing the previews with its myriards of dice I doubt seriously that anything FFG could field in 3rd edition is as quick as resolution in our Savage Warhammer games. (to be precise - not even closely as quick)

I've heard (well, read on various forums) about the Savage Worlds system, but it uses single die rolls, which I dislike for probability reasons. Rolling a single die is certainly faster than rolling many dice, the small amount of extra time for multiple dice is worth it to me for a non-flat probability distribution.

NewTroski said:

Weird, I have read several reviews and summaries and none of them indicated to me that more than one die was used at a time. Well, hey I like it better already

I would check it out, except I'm saving for v3, as long as I keep liking what I read in the designer diaries.

NewTroski said:

No one does grim fantasy like Warhammer, but Savage Worlds is great for any other genre. Want Aliens vs. Colonial Marines? It's there. Battle Mechs? It's there. Super Heroes, Westerns, Space Opera? Yeah, that too. I've ran Firefly, WWII, Horror, Necessary Evil (Super Villains) campaigns with it. I got my game group $10 rulebooks for Christmas I run it on Fantasy Grounds (virtual tabletop) sometimes. It's worth the small investment simply because it's so flexible.

Check out Savage Heroes for some great genre conversions.

Back to WFRP3, have I said today how much I'm looking forward to it

NewTroski said:

Just to clarify, all general "mook" NPCs roll only one die when testing. So there are some testing with only 1 die. All PCs and major NPCs roll their die type plus a d6 for their tests, but they're not added together, you just take the highest of the two. Savage Worlds is a pretty neat system, I'd recommend checking it out if you're at all interested in it. Very cheap buy in too, as has already been pointed out, only 10 bucks for the corebook. Not bad at all!!

chojun said:

I'm an old time WFRP fan and I've been playing the game since it first hit the market.

I'm keeping my initial stance: "I'm buying in."

I DON'T think it will be faster.

I DON'T think it will be easier.

I DON'T think it will be more intutive, streamlined, enhanced or any of that corporate bs they try to sell.

I DON'T think it will make it more story driven, or imagination-helping or anything else.

I DON'T think it will be a revolution in RPGs.

I certainly DON'T think it will be cheaper...

BUT I will buy it anyway...

And I'll tell you why: I love new games. It's as easy as that. I love to read them, feel them, buy them and play them.

This game is no different. I will buy in, play it and hopefuly love it.

My only fear here is that too few fans will buy in and that the ine will fail. This would be sad since it would mean less WFRP stuff to buy, but on the other hand I feel confident that someone will pick up the pieces sooner or later and it will get back on track.

/wolf

ps. side note: is it just me or do more people get excited to buy RPGs in BOX-Format again?

GhostWolf69,

I agree with you, with some other "I DON'T THINK" additions.

I think that, perhaps, I'll buy it just to check in, but sure I'm not going buying expansions or "kits" that will just overburden my table.

I'm just beginning to using PDFs and laptop to speedup play and improve the sessions with musics, photos, images and the like that the idea of cluttering my gaming table with some odditties (and dice) isn't looking right anymore.

But... new games are interesting. Still 100$ is a very steep price for something that isn't prospected as something that I'm going to play.

About the Box Format question... in all honesty this Boxed Version isn't so appealing to me but... who knows. Just in case it turns out to be something playable.

kristof65 said:

I like that you embellish to create a flavor to with character, and I totally understand the obsessive fascination with dice (since my wife owns 5 different sets because each one is pretty). However, you'd hate playing at some gaming cons or my table because there are GMs that frown on DTMD! (don't touch my dice!) behavior. It can be fairly disruptive and aggravating when people start accusing each other of messing with their dice. My solution to that problem in my group was if you roll a perfect 20 (or 10), everyone passes a d20 or d10 of theirs to the guy on the right. That pretty much ended the entire "YOU SCREWED UP MY KARMA, MAN!" accusation period.

I mean, there are entire comics (think Dork Tower and KoTDT) that make fun of obsessive dice fondling by PC Golems.

I'd challenge you to wear a different hat, or use a stylish sheet.

And without an edit function, I realize I missed the core of my argument, and thus, must make the dreaded Double Post:

I'm looking forward to these new dice, because they allow me the GM to legally interpret the outcome to my desire so I can stare down that obnoxious player that bickers constantly about the margin of successes/failures.

McClaud said:

How come you can't edit your posts when I can edit mine?

/wolf

hint: At the header of your post it will say: " Edit | Reply #48 | Published on 15 September 2009 "