The Lord of Excess said:

understandable and this seems to be a point for lots of the hardcore WFRP V2 gamers, and its nice to see your respect for the company . I felt the same way when 4E DnD came out....then i played the game....and i loved it, and i house ruled a bunch of stuff, healing SUCKS in 4E....horrible....ugh.....idk who designed that heal system but your characters can die within 2-3 rounds of combat with the right roles from the GM....just horrible....gosh....but anyway....i really enjoy how easy it is to get into WFRP V3....very very cool......but yes i see your side....and i fully understand.....i just hope you fine a way to play it soon.....you just might like it

Hi again, I have been ill and unable to read the post for the last few days (even had to cancel a DH session). But now I`m better . My voice is still lacking, although it’s not needed here.

First I have to thank everyone for continuing writing to this post, and as someone wrote it will be interesting to see where the thread ends.

And thanks to Mc Claud for including the neutral part to dislike and like part about the game, nice touch.

Mc Claud said:
B iggest 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.
You have a point there. The GM does indeed enforce the setting in the game. But can game mechanics influence the way how a game is played? I think it can, therefore it will be interesting to see how the rules will turn out, for it may indicate how the setting is or how to interact with the setting are going to be.
But as you say a good GM can always use whatever game rules and mechanics there is and still run his own setting. It`s a trademark for an experienced GM.

I have a theory that game mechanics do influence players on how they should interact with the setting or how they view the setting. For instance a game with a lot of combat rules, and combat abilities, with little or no social rules, will tend to focus on…well combat. And therefore emphasize on the combat element in a setting. If you on the other hand had a game with a lot of social rules and abilities, the emphasize would probably be on social interactions in the setting. Even though it was the same setting in both games.
Now, it would be interesting to conduct an experiment, where one group of players would have the combat orientated rules, and the other have the social orientated rules, but both groups would be introduced to the same setting. Now throw in some obstacles to be resolved and see who the different groups respond. Repeat this experiment with at least 20 or so groups to build a statistic, compare the groups’ history, analyze the data, and then see if the rules have any real influence.

Mc Claud said:
T here 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.

If this is true, I will have no more concerns about that issue. And I think what you say is true. Like you I see the bigger picture here, and I am concerned about the RPG PnP in general. Of that reason I think the re-make, is as much a reason to please the old gamers (or antagonize them), as it is an attempt to recruit a new generation of players.

Mc Claud said:
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.

I agree with you there. FFG is doing an outstanding job; they at least are not the kind of people who would post such comments, for they really truly care.

Farin said:

Actually that sounds like a pretty sweet damage/healing system to me.

Combat SHOULD be dangerous business, for PC's and NPC's alike. It shouldn matter if you're just a normal human being, stocky, sturdy dwarf, or imba-elf with imba-skills. A big, sharp piece of steel through the gut WILL seriously injure you. And if the rules system ever let the player conveninetly "forget!" that fact, then that system is a bad one.

Why would you want a combat system where the risk of dying is at a minimum all the time?

Varnias Tybalt said:

Varnias Tybalt said:

Thanks for a very insightsful post about the RPG/boardgame gaming industry. And no I was not trying to be negative, just realistic. Like in all business, you try to make money on selling products or services, and like you said you can do it in either two ways: beliveing in your products, or outright scam people. I firmly think that FFG is believing in their products, and that they care about what they produce and about their customers. I don`t think they have an agenda to squeeze money out of people, like you said (just in other words) there arent a lot of money to make in this market.

And that they are devoted gamers like you and me? no doubt in my mind that they are. Let me end this post with one of favourite quotes about capitalism:

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible. – Henry Ford

Varnias Tybalt said:

Everything agreed except the thing about dnd4e. DnD4 is absolutlely NOT about having dangerous combats. There is no way that a character can die in 2-3 rounds like one poster wrote (whereever he has this strange opinion from - did he ever played it?). I played alot of DnD4 the last 1,5 years as GM till paragon tier and I can assure you DnD4 is the most epic and heroic game after exalted (or maybe scion) out there and you can find no grittyness in it. You can have dangerous and immersive combat encounters this is true, but if the DM follows the DMG its not gritty.

I always wondering that WH3 should be similar to dnd4. This is not true. One of the most important core element of 4th edition are the minis and the battlemaps. WH3 dont have rules for such things and thus it cannot be dnd4.

Mal Reynolds said:

Of course you werent trying to be negative.

It's just that after reading a few threads here I've seen some pretty pessimistic and cynical people, ranting about how all these coloured dice an gaming pieces are implemented only in order to force people buy new ones because they will probably be lost or broken during normal gaming sessions and similar accusations which I just felt were a bit misdirected. Hopefully some of these people did actually read my post and maybe some of them might take the time to reconsider their cynical views a bit.

I am a pretty cynical person myself, it's just that I think I try to keep the cynisism in more appropriate areas and topics where it would be more reasonable to strive towards being realistic.

As for the Henry Ford quote, while I do have som issues with capitalism as an ideology (which are not to be discussed here, because it would be grossly off-topic), he did possess some responsible lines of thought unlike many other industrialist capitalists of his time (and even modern ones too).

Engaging in capitalistic pursuits can so very easily make people forget that they once started at the bottom like everyone else, and that when you create a company the company itself isn't really your "property" as much as it is your responsibility to other people. It is true that you might have started the company and worked hard to get it to where it is, but without the support of your employees and the approval of your ruling government the company in question would never ever have gotten off the ground in the first place.

This is something that certain magnates and executives forget ever so quickly as soon as they become rich and famous. The worst kind of capitalist is the one that considers profit to be the goal. The best kind is the one who considers profit to be the means to an end that is beneficial to more people than just him- or herself and their executive business partners. And I guess that's what my personal issues with capitalism bottles down to: the fact that the world is filled with more people of the former category rather than the latter.

If there was a way to insure that all corporate executives followed the line of thought that Henry Ford had, then I'd be willing to give capitalism a go. But as it is at the moment, the human factor pretty much insures that the proposed capitalistic utopia is as much an impossible and idealistic dream as the communistic utopia is. In my eyes, people have made it into a choice between contracting the plague or contracting cholera. You're pretty much f*cked either way, if you pardon my french.

But now I've steered off-topic despite my first intentions of not doing so. My main point was that more industrialist capitalists should think like Henry Ford did...

superklaus said:

i must disagree strongly! i have been playing and DMing DnD4E sence it was released and i have had around PC's die in my campains and yes they where lvl 1.....and i killed a group of 4 PC's with dire rats....and it was a "FAIR" encounter as written in DMG 1. so i must disagree with you sir.....respectfully

Farin said:

Aren't "dire rats" basically the same size as pitbull terriers, and nearly as nasty in temperament?

I love it when combat is gritty and deadly. Even if it means my own PC dies, because I know that even my own PC's death will make the surviving players feel like they just survived a dangerous situation. And if im on the surviving end, I'll get to experience that sense of accomplishment myself.

While it can be a bit anti-climactic if the entire group is killed off by some mook monsters, having a casualty here or there isn't a bad thing in my opinion.

Combat in an RPG shouldn't just be "another obstacle to climb over", you should get the feeling that by getting involved in a combat rather than solving the situation by other means (sneaking past the enemies, trying to reason through diplomacy with them, trying to assassinate them while they are asleep etc.) then you're putting your life on the line. In the real world, when people do that. They die. It doesn't matter if they have bigger guns/weapons tougher armour or are more skilled.

Even Rambo armed with twin M60's could become little more than a red smear on the wall if he was assaulted by a large number of "mook" vietnamese soldiers working together.

If combats aren't deadly (especially for level 1 characters who should be little better than mooks themselves) then there will be no sense of accomplishment by surviving a combat. They won't be special anymore.

Remember: a hostile situation with violence isn't something that you "win", it is something you survive. It's a huge difference!

To Varnias Tybalt

I understand you concern, and I think that FFG don`t deserve all this crap, even though they did, kinda kept the development of WFRP 3 a secret. I think it was a bad call, and the main reason why there is such much complaining about the new warhammer. People felt left out. I predicted a new edition as soon as FFG released the "Drive Tru" concept (pdf versions of 2nd edition), but I was surprised to find out the actual facts, from other sources than FFG.

in other words this can be viewed by some WFRP fans as a dishonest way of making its business. I don`t take it that way however, it might just have been a marked strategy, to create surprise and take everybody with storm.Its not like they HAVE to announce in advance that they are going to do a make-over for WFRP. Maybe it was a bad strategy, but that is all.

And yes you where off-topic, however it was very interesting off-topic topic. so I don`t really mind. Capitalism need to be regulated by the state, for instance all important aspects of my community are state-controlled (hospitals, railways, natural resources etc.) But not entirle, private corporations are allowed to own up to half of them, while the state owns the rest. This is called a Social-democracy, with strong traditions for wellfare and high salaries. For me its like taking the best from to sets of governmental systems, the one being capitalism with its free trade, the other is extensive welfare influenced by carl marx and yes communism, that ensure high salaries and free healthcare for everyone. This year my country have been rated as number one for the best country to live in....again, so our system works.

I would like to end by quoting Friele, a much beloved Executive Director and owner of the oldest coffee house in my country.

" nobody will miss me if was gone from work a week, but everyone would miss the cleaning lady, or the cantine employees. That`s because you matter and are important to this company" . -a speech Friele gave to employes before he announced a salary rise for everybody.

Varnias Tybalt said:

You have that right, combat should be deadly because it is. I sometimes remind my players (if they get to combat-hungry), that every possible combat have the potential to kill the PC, And that combat should not be taken light-heartedly. When my players are up to combat with human NPCs, or similar groups, I often use names on them in combat to state the fact that they are persons too.

Not every opponent wish to die in combat against my players, wheter they be henchmen, thugs or hardened criminals. If wounded, any sensible opponent will want to get out of harms way, either by fleeing, surrender or make desperate attempt to take out the threat. Nobody with a sense would go on fighting with 0 W left.

" for the love of Sigmar, don`t kill me, I have children" is a much used phrase when NPCs want to surrender, and it sure dampens the most bloodthirsty of any PC.

I use the same reasoning for intelligent monster races as well. Orcs will try to flee, live another day, raid another farm, Beastemen will run for the forrest, maybe track the PCs and try to take revenge while they sleep. But on the other hand some opponents will never surrender, like Chaos warriors, deamons and such.

Dark-elfs would not surrender in my game, because in their culture they do off with captives in one way or another, and expect the same in return. its all reflected in their culture and way of living how they would be in combat. Dark elfs would gladly continuing to fight despite having 0 wounds left. They wouldn`t take hostages either to get themselves out of harms way, since that means they must know the fact that humans value the life of others, especially innocent bystanders. In their culture there is no mercy, they don`t think in that way, because they don`t have those values.

Mal Reynolds said:

Read any of the Malus novels? my dark elfs would certainly flee if opposed. If they are not blood frenzied witchelfs ore acolytes of khaine ;-).

Thanks for pointing that out Kjetilkverndokken I completely left out the "fleeing" option about dark-elfs.

Of course, dark-elfs would flee if they met heavy resistance. I forgot that option from my equation. But if there was no retrat option, they would fight, and unlikely surrender, or take hostages.

Mal Reynolds said:

Then we mostly agree

The only thing I've seen so far that I like is the way the Initiative rules allows anyone in the party to act in any one of the initiative phases of their party, not just their own. It makes 'who goes first' another choice in combat instead of screwing the poor schlub with the low agility or crappy roll. The rest of 3E can go hang, but that rule is brilliant and something I intend to suggest at the next WFRP 2E game session...

Luther said:

thats really cool....i love when people go "i like that!...im gana use it" show that there is always something good : )

Farin said:

Heck, considering the 'tactical' nature of initiative in3E, I'll probably go one better and say those with the Command Skill get to roll two dice for Initiative and take the highest. Also, I'll allow a persoin with Knowledge (Strategy & Tactics) to use their INT instead of Agility for Inititive. Combined, the two should make for some excellent battle leaders, even if they are older and less agile.

EDIT: Upon thinking about it, I'd let the Command skill sub out FEL for AGL and let Academic Knowledge (Strategy and Tactics) add an INT bonus (INT/10) to your Initiative rolls.

my fix is easy use both systems

have every one roll a d10 plus agy or what ever the corraponting stat and if they get a hourglass move them down the track once they get ot the bottom they take a turn to get moving again then they hop in at the start or a fresh roll.

Adding a new stat, Initiative, that only military careers can boost, can do the trick.

I'll say, though, that Initiative is strongly tied to the combat system.
We should check the importance of "going first".

If going first means that the adversary will never strike back (in a case of killing), then the Initiative is crucial.
If going first is only a way of scheduling the round between PCs/NPCs, than that's not so important.

Mal I don't know how you did this but thanks for closing the the gap. I tried but apparently you have the magic stick Or a charming smile . I don't really play Warhammer RPGs because not my kind of genre. That is all I have to say.

DeathFromAbove said:

I believe it's still like 2e, each character takes their entire turn in order and resolves it before moving to the next. So, yes, Init will probably be important.

As a thought, you could place a limit as to how high/low characters can change their init to. Say, +/- 2, for example. So characters can freely exchange/take any intitiative slots within that number (2 in this case) of distance from their roll.

For example:

Elf rolls 5 init, human rolls 3 init, dwarf rolls 1 init. The elf cannot act in the 1 (dwarf-rolled) slot, and vice versa, because the difference is too great. The human, though, could swap init slots with either the elf or the dwarf.

This will reduce the extremes, while keeping the original intent of the rules.

darkkami said:

AH my one weakness, I am not immune to flatter. Thanks very much Darkami, for your kind words . I am not sure if I have contributed to anything in particular, other than maybe an increased understanding of each other. Too bad you don`t play WFRP, but everyone has its own drug I quess.
Again thanks Darkami

Mal Reynolds said:

Of course this struggle of yours is moot, because we all know that human beings grow bored of peace in the long run... Which means that my attempts to contribute in this thread were a complete waste of time.

Oh well, at least we can larf at human nature, hehehe...

Varnias Tybalt said:

Yeah you`re so right, its so human to grow too content and bored of peace, that they yearn for any disturbance in the tranquility of their lives. And writing anything on any internet forum is probably a complete waste, in the large views of things. But nevertheless we enjoy these small apperantly meaningless acts, not to create a meaning or significance in it, but just to enjoy process of meaningless debates.

Thanks for your honest and kind replies.

I think this got twisted a bit when I talked about game mechanics:

Mal Reynolds said:

Here's an example of how the GM is the real driver for RPGs and settings:

Paranoia and Legend of the Five Rings

If you look at the systems set for both of these RPG games, they are largely set for combat. Although they both have smaller additions to conduct players and GMs how to run non-combat encounters, they really don't shine or get used except in combat or near combat situations.

Yet, both games have settings that require a lot of NON-COMBAT interaction.

So how do they resolve this? Both games actually relied on a supplement to their main rules (such as GM guides) to help guide the GM through the setting. In fact, LotFR actually is a better games when you have minimal combat and a lot of social situations, as the game is entirely setting driven. Paranoia mocks the combat and depends on players and the GM to manipulate the rules to their own devising to survive. Which is exactly what that setting is about in the first place.

So both of those games are settings, with the mechanics there to drive the action/combat related instances that can pop up. I feel that when I play WHRP v3, I will have less combat, and more puzzle and social stuff. Because the setting is more important than the mechanics. And it works because the GM - me - makes it so.

GMs enforce the setting, not the mechanics. A lot of GMs nowadays discard mechanics or parts of systems to meet their own requirements/feelings anyway. So saying it's heresy is heresy in itself. The good GMs follow the GM Creed: I am the Game Master, and I control the game, the setting and the tempo. I am the arbiter of disputes, and the world in which the players tread. It is up to me to make the game enjoyable for the players - not the game itself. This is why I play.

McClaud said:

Excellent and so true!