There is a strong polarization of those who support the new edition and those who opposes it.
And over the few weeks and months the fractions have turned more and more bitterly against each other (I know I have been a participator of such degrading debacle or debate [wordplay]).
On one side if you like the game and indent to buy it, you are frown upon as someone with low judgment, easily impressed and gullible. But on the other hand if you dislike the idea of the new edition or criticize how FFG handled it, you are as quickly to be deemed a complaining, negative person that stands in the way of THEIR (supporters) new visionary game, and targeted as someone undeserving of the Freedom of Speech.

Why is it so? It’s not necessary to repeat all the previous posts that are spread through a dozen of topics, a short summary will be enough for those want to repeat an important view or meaning. Some obvious truths don`t have to be argued about (or maybe they do), these are:

1)FFGs intention is to make money, to the best of their abilities, like making great board-games.
2) Popular RPGs will always generate new editions; this cannot come as a surprise for anyone.
3) Warhammer III is a role-playing game, even though it has incorporated board-game elements.
4) You have the right to dislike and even boycott the new incarnation of WFRP, this is a consumer right.
5) You have the right to appreciate the new game even though it has yet to be released.
6) Role-playing communities don`t exist, we don`t have enough in common to be grouped as such. Role-players are as diverse as people can come.
7) The RPGs are not real, but you are.
8) Any RPG can be played without rules, but you cannot play the game without a setting.
9) We argue about the game because we are very fond of it.
10) Thought it was best to end the list here at number ten, so I did.

THE GOLDEN RULE
My intention is to bring the gap between the supporters and those who opposes it closer. So here is my golden rule, If you are a supporter of WFRP III, than try to include at least one thing that you don`t like about the new game, or is uncertain of. If you on the other hand, dislike the new edition, try at least to include something that you like from the new edition, or are uncertain of. Remember that most members here are intelligent enough to see through sarcasms, so please no cheating the GOLDEN RULE.
So what is it to discuss? Anything really. Here is a good start:
Do the new rules and game mechanics change the setting? Will it change the overall WFRP world? And if so, what rules in particular are you thinking of? Will the change be good or bad?

example

I like the idea of Party sheet, it was one of the things my group responded best to. They think it will enhance party loyalty, reduce infighting, and make interesting roleplaying opportunites if tension-meters rises. I don`t like the prospect of fewer skills for WFRP III I kinda like having a lot skills to go around, they make for more diverse characters.

I like the idea of getting a complete new system with unique and fresh ideas and I love the dice pool (judged from what I've seen from Jay's diaries). Rules will not change the setting, but will probably change the style of play. I'm looking forward to it. I probably dislike the party sheet, because I like party infighting (to a degree, of course) - but my final jugdment has to wait until I have that thing in my hand.

I like the dice pool - to me it seems a very interesting narrative tool. I don't like the amount of bits and pieces along with the apparent necessity to play at a table if they're all used.

Mal i must say im agree with you 100% this forum has reduced to a bunch of 5 year like fights of "my dad (or in this case RPG) can beat up your dad!" "NO my dad can beat up your dad!" and i admit i have stoopped into it a bit but only to try to bring others into the light and im proud to say i stand beside you in this! I love this new system for just about everything it offers! the cards, the party and career sheets, the dice are prob my favorite part so far, the books are gana very pretty and clean cut, the lack of LOTS of mini's on the table cuz any GM knows that lots of minis are a pain to track.....and for what i dont like.....i have 2 things, the price tag is really big, but im cool with it because my guys are all pitching in ( still REALLY PRICEY) and second is that core set has limited races, im glad they made the High Elves and Wood Elves different cuz the are SO VERY DIFFERENT but really? only 4 races........i would like to see more but hey....out of thousands of reasons to hate the game....i only find 2 problems SO FAR

Fair enough, sounds an interesting thread topic.

Whilst I'm still not convinced on the new edition, I might be open to changing to it - the previews have made me go from not wanting it at all to being fairly lukewarm.

So, I guess you can count me nominally in the negative camp in that I'm not going to be preordering - I'll be waiting for reviews and demos first. To be on topic then, a positive thing I can say about this edition is the concept of using a dice pool over a flat percentage range. If it has been handled well (again, something reviews and demos will convince me of) then it means there will be a bell curve distribution rather than a flat one for probability on rolls.

For the maths impaired, what I mean by that is that extreme failure and success are less likely with dice pools, whereas you have a fairly high chance of failing on a percentage roll, even if you're good (50%) and extremely skilled (+20%) - you still fail three times in ten.

Good thread and a mature attitude, lets face it this is a new game if we don't like it, we can just ignore it. I think that tools for managing sequences are interesting in this new edtions. On the other hand; this is not a simpler game to play than the old edition, but we still need to see some live action.

And I think that a good discussion is ok if we are mature about it, it is afterall good debates that creates good ideas and solutions.

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video

Armrek said:

Ignoring it will be more problematic if they bring on an official source book for, let's say Tilea or any other region or race yet uncovered, which you badly want for your own campaign. Theoretically you should be able to extract the background information and ignore all rules-related things and gimmicks...

I started as a fiery and bald opposer of this new incarnation of WFRP.

My main reasons are:

- Lack of respect for a 23 years old gaming system

- D&D Like commercializing rules (If you want to play comfortably with more than 3 players you have to buy more player's packs)

- Apparently simplified stat line (One of the greatest things of V1 was, imho, the fact that with a single glance of your statline you had so many informations about how to play your character. You could have been stronwilled but coward, authoritary but not much a fellow, agile but slow reflexed...) V2 had one of it's defects in simplyfiying the stat line a little bit. Now V3 is apparently doing it even more.

- The rules are so different that if a new interesting sourcebook cames out (GE: Dwarves or Wood Elves racial books) I won't be able to use it with V2 if I do not want to invest for the whole new V3. V2 and V1 sourcebooks were quite compatible in some aspects.

Facts I do like about V3?

It's incredible but after a deep read I'm starting to like something about character creation, happy coloured dices and action cards.

But even then I still have many doubts about the effectiveness of the new gaming system, about the commercializing and about how much the new ruleset will bring up again the game to too much heroic levels.

I was one of those people, who were very pissed off when they found out that the 2nd edition was being discontinued, particularly as I had bought nearly all the second edition stuff. Likewise I was horrified by the early stuff from FFG about the 3rd edition, extraordinarily bad PR in any book. However the Designer diaries have helped alot, although I am still a little worried about the low number of careers, and the rather large gaps in our knowledge about combat (armour, weapons etc). Still I have been impressed enough to preorder both the Core rules and the Adventurers Kit. I just hope that all the later stuff, including the campaign, particularly, will justify my optimism. At the moment I do not think anybody really knows enough at the moment, to say whether either 2nd or 3rd edition will be better, and I suspect it will come down to personal gut instinct.

Ok, I'm in.

What I don't like of the new v3 is the dice pool or, better say, how thay handle it. To me it seems too slow and will not add too much to the overall experience.
Character seems very heroic style and, to me, they have lost that gritty, muddy, face that I loved.
Henchmen rules and party sheet.

What I can like is the "trinkets", if handled well and will not feel as unneeded addition.
What I like is the abstrac distances that can be used in combat and the possibility of not using minis.

I must be honest, while there are few aspects that I can like about this v3, the overall feeling is that much of what has been done is for "pure money" and not a work of love.
I'm not against a new edition, but I can't help but feel that way.

PzVIE said:

Of course one would do that to use the source book, that's the thing about RPGing you can, given enough imagination, convert anything to any system. I was merely talking about not playing 3rd Ed when I said the 'I' word....

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video

Just a quick note to thank everyone, especially those who aren't liking the new version, for posting constructive thoughts!

I was originally skeptical of the new version. Hearing about all the cards and stuff, I was thinking FFG was turning the game into a boardgame. After seeing the video of the seminar, I was a bit mollified to know it was still an RPG.

1. Party sheets: I like them a lot, well at least the idea that the party chooses one as a concept. I also like the 'group card' affecting the group, and players playing into it. I am less sure of the tension meter. It probably won't get used in my games, but it is an interesting tool that could be used by some.

2. Dice pool: Like the game itself, I was pretty worried about the dice pool. There are a lot more dice compared to a single % roll, plus it requires buying more dice. After many years of playing, I 've got plenty of dice. I'm not sure I really need more. After reading the designer diary, though, I have come to better appreciate what the dice pool can do for the players and the GM. It gives a lot of information about what is influencing the roll, plus it can tell a lot of things besides pass/fail and degrees of success. It will take some getting used to, though. Time to get used to the symbols and what they mean. I expect a slow start, but once people get comfortable with the symbols the rolls should come out fairly quickly.

3. Cards: I like and dislike these. They will certainly make the game easier to play in the beginning IMO, without a need to look things up in the rules. I think it will also help when expansions come along. I'm not sure of their staying power, though. Once people are better acquainted there will likely be more of a tendancy to leave them out. They could end up as more 'fiddly bits' to be lost, than game aids. Time will tell, and as I said, they'll likely be very handy in the beginning.

4. PCs: I don't mind a few fewer careers. First, there will be expansions with more. Second, there were several careers in previous editions that were either useless, silly, or could have fallen under another career template ... and they rarely, if ever, got used. I am a bit surprised by the paring down of stats. I didn't see the stats of v2 as too many or overwhelming. I don't think it is something that will make the game any less fun, though. I think the generation system and advancement system look good.

5. Backgrounds/Sourcebooks: I still think there are a lot of similarities between the two versions. Beside the fact that the information itself can be used in either version of the game, adventure plots and stuff all translate. Really, only stats and dice rolls are affected, and I'm optimistic that both modifiers/challenge dice and stats can be converted back and forth with just a little effort. So, I don't see a major issue taking my v2 stuff and changing it to v3, and vice versa. I could be wrong, of course, and yes it will be more work than if v3 retained more of v2 mechanics, but I don't think it will be overly difficult.

My feeling is that FFG (and to a lesser extent GW) wanted something fresh for WFRP after all these years. You can only put so many fresh coats of paint on before you have to strip it all back down to the wood and start a new layer. Yes, it was also partly motivated by money I'm sure. It's probable they thought they'd get more sales with new game mechanics, than a rehash update of the same old system. However, I can see a lot a thought and "love" of the Warhammer game coming through in how it is designed, and the tools they thought to provide GMs and players. I can also see it in the seminar video where Jay is talking about the game and the Warhammer world.

In the end, I'm convinced enough (as is my wife, who is a WFRP fan) that it will be a good game and worth buying. I can appreciate those who are less sure and want to wait for hands-on reviews before commiting. $100 is a steep price to spend for something you aren't pretty sure you are going to like.

dvang said:

I would never have looked into it had they just rehashed the old one.....it was all the new stuff ide never seen before that really looked amazing to me so yeah.....all new coat of paint won 6 DnD people.....

Personally I've always enjoyed FFG products. They've been always highest quality.

I play RPGs by years now and I've played with more systems than can I remember.
So, here some onest thought about this new edition:

1) Dice pool: I've experimented a lot of different ways of genereting "numbers". From diceless roleplay, to coin flipping, to card extraction, finger drawing (don't know how to say). In the end the old, numerical dice, resulted the more quick, simple and efficient.
Adding/removing/substituiting dice type can be very tricky. Throw in images and you can get very confused players.

2) Races/careers/stats: seems that they watered a little the systems not in the mechanical deparment that, imho, is a little more involved, but on setting maturity. They have lowered the target age to catch even the younger. While this is not a bad thing I see as lost the depth of mature playing and contents.
I'm sure that I can continue to play "my old warhammer", but the feeling isn't right anymore. For me.

3) Trinkets: if all this added stuff will add to the experience it will be a good thing. Why not? In the end I use a myriad of addition to the "bare" books. Music, images, sound effects taken from videogames. So cards and tokens aren't different. Well see.

4) Pleyer cap: I don't like to have a player cap from an RPG.

5) Combat: from what I've seen combat has lost something in the "realism" ground. This is just a speculation (since lack of specific), but I like systems were I can see player choices. For choices I mean were to hit to bypass armor, manouvering, doding, parring, locational wounds, etc.
The feeling (again, I can be wrong), is that with a "pool roll" we get the round. I'm not a fan of this approach.
Relative distances is a good thing and will speed up pl

6) Something about monsters rules. My concern on this aspect are tied on point 2, more than "mechanically speaking".

7) Party sheet and stance meters: I can't say that I don't like them since I don't understand what I can use them for (in my games). In this category fall the possibility of sharing skill/talents, etc. The feel is of a reduced world complexity. This is also tied to point 2.

8) Price: in the end probably I'll buy v3 (searching for some offers ). What I don't like about the price is the player cap. If the price was 100$ but with no players cap (like others RPG), perhaps I'll never complain about it.

Concluding a new, reworked WFRP isn't a bad thing. As I said in a earlier post this v3 seems more a work of engineering than a work from who really appreciated the game in the first two editions.
While captivating new players is a GOOD THING (and also making money), sure there are many, many ways in which WFRP could had evolved.

Well see were this path leads...

DeathFromAbove said:

My point exactly, this is a new game. It is a totally different direction than WRFP 1st and 2nd ed on the mechanics side, but the atmosphere remains. So let's se where it leads, it is something else...

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video

My impression of the "player cap" was just because of a limited number of some of the available materials. For example, we know for sure that there are only 3 player-keeper containers. If a fourth player is willing to keep their character stuff in a home-made container, then the lack isn't a problem. Similarly, there's probably only 3 or 4 basic action cards (1 for each of 3 players, and maybe 1 for GM), so if players are willing to share those, then you can accomodate more players. With more players, you also run into needing multiple copies of some action/talent cards, and might run over the available quantities of them. If players share cards, or otherwise record the information (or make your own additional cards, etc), you can accomodate more players. So, the 'target' is 3 players, and the quantities of materials are geared for 3 players, but theoretically with a bit of creativity you can still run a group of 6 with a single Core Set. It's not really a player "cap", but a recommended number where it ensures there are enough cards/materials that each player has any they might need. That's my impression, anyway.

dvang said:

that was my impressiont too

sorry for double post but to continue lol hit replay not thinking......I dont plan on getting any other dice, the guys can get their own if they want but i dont really see the point and the cards can be shared.....not a big deal.....if you are really possesive about your stuff......then it might be an issue

Farin said:

That's the spirit! Be pragmatic and improvise with the resources at hand

And after all I think Jay owes us a session demo video

Armrek said:

thnx lol yeah there is a real reason why stuff cant get passed around lol

First of all thanks for all the replies!

I have read all of your posts and the first thing I learned is that a few of us is in a "waiting modus", sceptical but waiting to make their mind up, they might be the most sensible of us. I might come wrong out, but I am a firm beliver or supporter of this edition. So we have those who support WFRP III and those who dislike it, and I think, a great many that are just on hold, waiting.

I also see that there aren`t any concistency in what we dislike or like about the game, some loves the idea of a party sheet others dislike it. Which confirms my theory that WFRP roleplayers are very diverse in how they roleplay or run a game.It also proves that we are quite sophisticated, and proud of the fact, we know how to roleplay. For a PC, the warhammer world is not only unique in it flavor, style or mood, it demands every aspect of the Roleplaying scope for you to succeed.

Remember your first fix?

I am ofcourse talking about when you first discovered or played a RPG. Remember? For me it was a revelation, something I have missed without knowing I had missed it. Today it bring back fond memories of lazy summers, sneaking out well past midnight to play WFRP at the old barn and nights filled with wonderful stories and crickets. Well nothing is as the first fix, no matter what your drug is.
But for me the new edition holds the promise of a new fix, a rediscovery of past experiences, and the turning back of time... I know, Its called growing up, and things can never be the same. But if playing the new edition can give our group even a glimpse of the "good old days", it would not rekindle our childish enthusiasm, it would set us on fire. And for that sweet promise alone I will buy WFRP III.

--Nostalgica got the better part of me.

Mal Reynolds said:

d20 modern was my first rpg.......ill never forget the time one of the guys shot his revolver and epicly failed the role to hit.......shot the guy behind him istead and then max dmged the role....very nice....

We try new systems all the time in my group.

Likes:
1. The die pool - it seems to add more outcome to die rolls than "you hit, you miss." Now, maybe you hit but you over-extend yourself doing so, wearing yourself out faster. Or you miss, but you cause the enemy to fall back out of fear of your flailing around. I have players who are sticklers to interpretation of rules and actions, so being able to interpret the die roll with more options makes me grin as the GM. I tried a critical hit deck, and that failed because players still had more room than I did to interpret their results.
2. The party sheets - I think the main idea is to give your party a starting point and a story line for how the party got together and how they interact as a group. Half the time, my players don't even come with good reasons for why a dwarven smith, an elven guide, a halfling alchemist and a human wizard are together. They just "are" and I try to encourage them to roleplay their interaction with each other more. Now they have to choose a starting point that gives them a reason out of the gate. And I see them possibly trying to elevate the tension in the party just to trigger a scene out of hitting 5 or 10 in tension. lolz
3. The stance meter - I like that players can use their "stances" to indicate their overall level of character mentality.
4. The range and initiative combat ideas - I like both, because we already use something similar to both.

Dislikes:
1. The stance meter - I dislike the words they use to describe the red and green aspects of their stance meter. To me, it's not aggressive vs passive in how they described it. It's actually tempermentalness. Red means the player is slowly moving into a very angry, hot-headed place, and their actions reflect how it works for certain careers (such as a Bright mage). Green means peaceful and calm state of mind, being more logical and steady. However, GW wanted FFG to use "aggressive and passive." I feel that trips up the people who don't like the stance meter, as it means something different to them.
2. The cost - I can't afford this now. I'll have to beg my wife to buy it, or get someone to give it to me as a present.

Neutral:
1. The number of careers - I'll have to see how that plays out. One thing I disliked about the first and second versions is the amount of worthless or redundant careers. However, they could eliminate careers that we liked.
2. The amount of stuff - I've never had problems with components. We like to use components from other games when they add to the atmosphere.
3. Expansions - what RPG company doesn't already make a lot of expansion material for their games?
4. Player cap - I already have a player cap: 4. I won't run larger groups because they tend to get unruly and someone gets bored. It's a sweet spot. If I decide to add one more player, I'll PHOTOCOPY a card or something for use.

AND

Biggest Neutral of All - the setting. I've said this ten thousand times and I hate to repeat it, but the setting is not the mechanics. How the GM runs the game enforces the setting, but the setting is the overall story, location and interaction with the world. I know people who already run Warhammer RPG games at a epic, heroic pace, not dealing with the misery and harshness of the Warhammer setting. I know people who add more drama and darkness to the Warhammer setting. Guess what? It's the GM that enforces the setting. Not the mechanics. I can take the campiest, most glamorous rules for a setting and still run the setting in a dark, tense and harsh way. I'm the GM: If something needs to be more deadly, then I crank up the danger. If something needs to be less dangerous and more hilarious, I crank up the comedy.

There is no "heresy" as long as the game takes place in the Warhammer world, with the same expectations and ideas of the previous setting. I haven't seen any desire to change that. I see a lot of ways that FFG is trying to enforce some of the "grittiness" of Warhammer while drawing in a new crowd (which - by my observation - is less willing to play grim, harsh fantasy games) who like concrete "win" conditions to games.

Warhammer isn't going to get published if it doesn't make money. I think we all want it to keep going, and to get more out of the game and setting. We just have to realize that running on one system forever has its limits, and as the MMO Age expands, games are going to have to evolve to meet the expectations of the new gamer or lose the new gamer to the Internet. It seems sad to me that I see so many, "I DON'T CARE ABOUT NEW PLAYERS, JUST MY GROUP AND OUR GAMES," posts when it comes to talking about new game systems applied to old settings. We already have a hard enough time keeping the tabletop form of RPGs going.

Likes:

1. The setting is being supported by a gaming company with access to publishers!
2. The new mechanic system has not tarnished the well worn and cared for setting that I've loved for years. Look back to the magic, timeline and provincial revisions from v1 to v2 guys...those were huge setting changes yet the game prospered and a good number of very talented GM's hopped on the boat in v2. Imagine the potential idea influx we could have in v3. This game has always been about 75% RAW and 25% HR (varying greatly as always between person to person). Pick two v2 GM's and I gaurantee they resolve certain situations differently. This won't change and it would appear that the new mechanics could have a lot of flexibilty built into the RAW.
3. Dishing out some of the decision making to players and parties. I like that players will have a bit more to do in v3 from keeping tabs on abilities and party effects to how they wish to tackle each round of a combat. How well that will play out with your average gaming group remains to be seen. But I can appreciate FFG's thought process on this.

Neutral:

1. Pushing the setting to just pre-SoC. So we're going from 1 minute to midnight to about 10 till? Whatever...
2. Price of the Gear. I can afford it but I will be waiting a good while past the initial release to attempt to take advantage of a la carte purchases. Besides, until I make the decision to convert to a new edition I'm going to be less than interested in new splat books detailing Ostland...again... for 40bucks. I don't think the prices are unreasonable at all. I am just cautious with new purchases in general and I already have a good book on the Empire.
3. Use of words like encounter mode, boons & banes, socket abilities, party tension meter, stance meter, action sequence, recharge tokens, etc. They neither inflame me or excite me to any degree what so ever.

Dislike:

1. All the Extra Parts n Pieces. I have a two year old that has some sort of chaos gifted power to find my breakable/losable things and proceed with super human speed to feed them to the dog, destroy them color them or lose them entirely. Granted I normally put my toys away like a good boy but there will come a day when I leave my box of treasure laying down low and that'll be it...poof... Luckily my dog is large and can pass dice. Additionally I like traveling light. I love sitting down, flipping open my adventure notebook pulling my two d10's out of my pocket and laying waste to all the carefully laid plans and character dreams of my players. The space required for 5 adult nerds, snacks, tokens, meters, mats, minis (yes we can do without but sometimes we like using them), cards, sheets, etc...yeesh we already fill up a good sized living room as it is. But this isn't hatred by any means. It's just a notch in the dislike pile.
2. Specific non-integer Dice. This is only a failing of my group...but they're my friends and we have played together for a long time. Two of my four players will be completely unteachable to a system where they have to look at a pile of symbols and tell me what they mean which means I would be doing their share of the data crunching as well as the normal GM load. Sure they will eventuall pick it up via osmosis, but the few months of me shouting at them and hurling half empty Mt. Dew cans accross my kitchen could put a damper on the party tension meter.
3. Point Buy Character Gen. One of my players will always min max the crud out of his characters...always. He's just that guy. The random char-gen of the previous editions have allowed him some freedom from the obsessive need to have all his numbers in all the right spots all the time. Of course we can just house rule some random jazz into it, but this still goes in the wonky pile.
4. More complex resolution system. This will take a lot of getting used to and I'm worried that my players may just start to want to play another game rather than get up to speed with all the excess counting, shifting and fiddling they and I will have to do to resolve any given task. Having different rules for adversaries and players is going to be taxing on me because i'll have to keep tabs on what the players' are doing within their rule set and also what I'm doing in mine. It's not that this is a bad mechanic it is just that a more complex and simulationist system brings with it a hefty cost on brain power expended for math and organization and less left over for me totell my side of the story and keep my NPC's voices straight. Again, this is really more of a friction point on my current style of play with WFRP. I could come to love the change but for now it goes in the old dogs hate new tricks pile.