Herr Arnulfe said:

Probably true. But sad.

Not for RPGs ! But for thinking and expressing complex ideas in general.

I hate this era of blurbs and sound bites. I'm sorry kids have to grow up thinking that it is enough to make an opinion or to decide on what action to take.

All this "stupid is the new cool" thing... and zappidy zap, if you don't captivate me every waking second, I'm gone!

What a mess.

End of rant.

Jericho said:

On the other hand, the expression of complex ideas in "next-gen" RPG books will require flavourful writing that's also clearer and more economical than most RPGers are accustomed to reading, otherwise they only solve half the equation. There will always be some amount of reading required in RPGs (at least, for games using highly-detailed settings). Perhaps the next-gen RPG will use relationship diagrams, rather than describing NPC/faction relationships in text-only. More pictures of NPCs and locations conveying atmosphere and personalities. A picture is worth 1,000 words, as the saying goes.

Jericho said:

Hehe I agree, but our parents said the same about the silly quick way of life we had and so did their parents and so on. It's the way of life. Litterature won't die, it will just have another form.

Human passion, love, hate and so on will for ever inspire people to produce some form of fiction.

But we're getting old... that's the only conclusion you can draw from it all

Gallows said:

MMO are you serious, just look at the GREAT DnD 4e MMO style game, if it was that great, they would not be playing AD&D 2nd edition at WoTC to get a handle on a real old school rpg, so they can dump 4e and make the next 5e ULTIMATE DnD Anniversary game in 2014.

The only chimps that want this crap are video gamers and they don't stay in the pnp gaming that long anyhow so why cater to them?

flyingcircus said:

The neat thing about being a closed minded ignorant egoist with the misguided impression that their own tastes equal empirical truth is that they can make statements like that with a straight face. Care to prove to us that the employees of WotC don't play 4e games? How about proving to us that WotC is currently working on 5e? How about proving that the any species of monkey or ape (other than homo spaiens), chimp or otherwise, are capable of playing RPGs? No, can't do that either? Ok, how about proving that the only people that like 4e D&D (and it sounds, based on your post, that you are implying that WFRPG3e is in a similar position) are people that like mass multiplayer gamers? You have no idea what you are talking about. All you know is that you don't like a particular thing. Your need to denigrate the things you don't like, and your attempt to colonize the subjective reality of any who might like those things via empirical statements about their natures, says more about your own "chimp" like qualities than anything else.

But hey, a question deserves an answer. You want to know why people who like things like 4e get catered to? It is because 4e is the top selling RPG on the market today. It is because gaming companies are still in the "we need to make money" business. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want warhammer FRPG to turn into D&D 4e. Hell, what got me into WFRPG 3e are its differences from 4e D&D. And, I certainly don't think 4e D&D is any better than WFRPG 3e (I love WFRPG's system). I also have no opinion on earlier editions of WFRPG one way or the other. Despite not liking what I have heard about those editions, I have not played them, so I can not form an educated opinion. But the notion that you have any right to denigrate players because they like things that you don't, or that the market should ignore the tastes of its largest consumer share, is misplaced.

Gallows said:

This is true, but with age we get better at finding flaws in litterature, and so we need "better" litterature to satisfy our "hunger".

Take DragonLance, I loved it as a kid, tried to read it a couple of years ago, and aside from memories overcomming me, there was little to nothing impressive about it anymore. This is not due to "old news" only, because not all books, from my youth, does this to me.

So I find myself getting more and more "picky" when it comes to creativity/imagination, as I grow older. A sheet of paper with a dungeon, and a random encounter/treasure table, would have amazed me 20 years ago, but now it would entertain me for as long as it took me to draw a line through the dungeon to the finish... I allways had the urge to break down barriers, and explore new kinds of conflicts. A bad guy is no longer fun, unless he has tons of bagage, and often also many good traits. I no longer introduce overpowered npc's, who the pc's has no way of killing and/or who kill everything around them, making the pc's feel very powerless. Playing vampires only hold any interest with me, IF the people actually try'n play vampires (the sadness, the love of some things, the whole feeling spectrum), and not just play them as a powerfull pc (the "I'll tear his head of", "but why...?").

So while our imagination might never dwindle, it will in fact seem to dwindle IF we don't improve it. Simply because we'll expect better stories, more complex personalities etc... so if our imagination don't follow our minds need for constant challenges, it will seem as it's dwindling. But make no mistake, a seemingly dwindled imagination can still make fun sessions for kiddies...

So I think this is why so many adults put rpg'ing on the shelf as they get older. Their mind wants challenges, like twisted plots in thrillers etc... but if their imagination, or the GM's imagination, can't deliver this, then they give up...

I can't explain, though, how come some 40 year olds still play dungeon crawl, with absolutely no imagination tied to it... that is beyond my imagination

I guess I have to say the truth to everyone. We're old and set in our ways. No one like someone coming over to there lawn dumping or say that made it all wrong and should make different. Then there are those who like new things to try and dont mind something different. Our group from in the day played all sort of systems GURPS, Rifts, WHFRP 1ed, and the list goes on. Then there were some groups that just played mostly one system I sat in on(D&D, Champions, GURPS, WHFRP). I just dont see why all the fighting when the atleast we should be trying to get the word out about the hobby. I swear I seen more people put more energy into their rants than I bet they ever done to expand the hobby. We all have kids, nephews, nieces, and cousins show them a game(I found WHFRP 3ed was a easy starter game for my son and his friends. My daughter likes her nWOD vampire game she plays with her friends and cousin.). Look at the hard facts unless the hobby expands beyond the its nitch group we might as well start asking our favorite publishers to start building retirement centers next(actually that would be kinds of cool just having a RPG retirement home). Hasbro, SJgames, FFG, and others well say that its the board/card games are keeping the RPG side afloat the pure rpg publishers(indies not included) are going by the ways side. As much as I hear everyone complain about D&D, its brought more people into the hobby in North America and most parts in the world. If there is some wish I could hope for is that instead of bitchhing wich system is the best go out and teach a game to some. Please that is all dice and pencils go forth and teach a game to others.

Spivo said:

Yes you absolutely right. It's a two edged sword... we may improve our attention to detail, so we have a more creative imagination able to fill a world with more detail. But this same attention to detail works the other way around. In the end it means players and GMs need to put more effort into RPGing than aerlier where lesser stories could satisfy us. But this is what I like... exploring the way we evolve as role players. But it does take me longer to prepare for sessions now compared to when I was 17. Back then I could prepare 10 hours in about an hour. Now it takes much longer. But I enjoy it still, because the extra effort I put into it pays off. Plus we don't play twice a week now, but once a month.

You get a lot of experience as a GM, but the actual task of GMing doesn't become much easier.

Gallows, I hear you. Being a GM is a ton of work. Personally, I think that WFRP1e and WFRP2e really were thinking with their "Adventure Path's." Even if the campaigns weren't perfect (afterall, how do you get your characters to Kislev in the middle of a campaign?), what they did was remove about 8 of the 10 prep hours from a Gm's workload and added the common thread that so many of us can compare.

Herein lies the excellence in The Gathering Storm (with its imperfections) and the folly of The Edge of Night (with it's perfections).

Without the "Campaign" theme, my GM workload triples. I really hope they continue the campaign mentality and stay away from the single-adventure (unless it's easily tied into a campaign).

My 4.25 brass bits (converted from 1e).

jh

Emirikol said:

That will be covered in detail in TTT Expansion #5.

Cyber-Dave said:

Solid? No. There are some really great ideas in this edition, but the execution is far from solid in my opinion. My two biggest complaints are:

1. The rules are very confused about the difference between maneuvers and actions. From the rules, it appears that actions would only be stuff for which you have cards, while maneuvers can be absolutely anything, including stuff that can also be handled by actions. I'd prefer to make actions a lot broader (which means we need some guidelines for stuff that you don't have on cards), and putting maneuvers strictly in a supporting role. Otherwise actions are either pointless or a free extra action each turn on top of what you can do with maneuvers.
2. The lack of good rules for opposed tests. There are rules for that in the game, but they are completely broken.

I should point out I don't have the Player's Guide. Since they were first announced, I've been hoping that it would be a complete rewrite of the rules, and included fixes for these issues, but I have no idea if that has actually happened. I'd love it if someone could fill me in on this.

mcv said:

Your issues aren't issues with the game. It looks like you just haven't understood the rules fully.

Competitive tests may be what you're looking for. They are in the rules and present a fully 1on1 competition. Look at those rules, they work perfectly.

I don't see how maneuvers and actions can be confusing. There are examples of what maneuvers are. It's just not set in stone. The general principle though is that if you want to do something that has an effect on someone else or yourself, then it's an action. Moving moves you from place to place, but it doesn't have an effect that is put on you, like using an action card for instance.

But generally actions are action cards and maneuvers are the small things, that doesn't directly have an effect on anyone like moving, drawing a weapon, drinking a potion (the act of drinking it is not an effect in itself although the potion will have an effect on you).

The rules aren't organized very well, but I like how there aren't rules for all kinds of silly crap so you have to look in the book all the time. You just apply common sense and go with the flow.

Gallows said:

Well yeah, but that's because they're not explained properly. The problems really are in the book.

Gallows said:

There are two issues with that. Firstly: if we're supposed to use competitive tests instead of opposed tests, then why are opposed tests in the book?

The second is of course that competitive tests require twice as many rolls. If you want to do combat through opposed tests in order to make it scale better (as some people have suggested), then you're throwing away the beautiful "one roll and read the results" mechanism. To me, competitive tests are really only for when two people are trying to do the exact same thing, and neither has the initiative or is reacting to the other. Like arm wrestling, or a running match.

Gallows said:

Then you haven't read the chapter on maneuvers properly. A maneuver can also be an assist, which does have an effect on someone else. It also mentions "a skill roll" without any explanation of what that skill roll would accomplish.

Gallows said:

If you limit actions to just the action cards, then there are a lot of things that you simply won't be able to do. You'd be turning it into an even more restrictive version of D&D4. It seems to me that action cards should represent specific tricks that you're really good at, without limiting you in doing things that you might never have done before.

Consider the few social actions. Can only people who have those actions try to influence NPCs? That'd be silly and overly restrictive. But if a regular roll to influence someone with just a skill roll is a maneuver, then suddenly you can do the same thing as either an action or a maneuver.

I'm curious: could you explain why you feel that they are broken? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here (for a change ).

I personally like the options available (even without the supplemental ideas presented by the Player's Guide):

• Comparing the opposed attributes and adding challenge dice appropriately, or
  
• Creating a "tug-of-war" track, allowing each opposing character to "pull" the tracking token toward their side with successes, or
  
• Creating a regular track, with a token for each opposing character: each success moving the token "forward", creating a "race to the finish" of sorts
  
• Or if none of that appeals to you, going with the simple: each character rolls and the one with the higher degree of success wins?

None of that comes from any expansions or supplemental errata, they're right there in the book. They seem solid enough. In fact, I feel that there are MORE options in this game for opposed tests than in just about any other RPG I've ever played...?

EDIT: In response to your post above mine:

There are two issues with that. Firstly: if we're supposed to use competitive tests instead of opposed tests, then why are opposed tests in the book?

The second is of course that competitive tests require twice as many rolls. If you want to do combat through opposed tests in order to make it scale better (as some people have suggested), then you're throwing away the beautiful "one roll and read the results" mechanism. To me, competitive tests are really only for when two people are trying to do the exact same thing, and neither has the initiative or is reacting to the other. Like arm wrestling, or a running match.

I don't believe that you "have" to use those competitive tests. They're suggested as a way to add a bit more depth to a conflict, rather than settling on things with a binary: pass/fail scenario.

mcv said:

Oh well. It seems to me you just want to have issues. We play just fine, and have no trouble understanding the rules. Yes assists are maneuvers. It seems like you have a fine grasp on what's what, so I don't see why you complain. You can do anything you want. What is it that you want someone to do specifically that isn't covered by an action card or a maneuver?

It seems like you're just complaining on a theoretical level, when in practice the rules work just fine.

If you had cared to read the rules they clearly state that opposed checks favor the active part. If you're not satisfied with that use competitive checks. They may take a bit longer, but not much, since the GM can roll... oh the horror... while the player rolls, so both have a result at the same time and can find the end result.

To me your complaining seems like theoretical drivel to be honest, when we have played almost 150 hours now and the rules have proved solid in every way. We have been playing together for 20 years and have seen our share of horrible broken systems. WFRP v3 isn't one of them.

But let me know what it is a player want's to do that you can't find a way to let him do within the rules?

double post... read above.

Necrozius said:

These are all great ideas, if you want to model that particular check as a complete act of its own. But what if it's just a small part of something bigger and you want to handle it with a single die roll? Suppose you're in the middle of combat, everybody is fighting around you, and you're trying to wrestle someone to the ground. I'm not going to interrupt combat with a tug-of-war track. Like the rest of combat, I just want a single roll and be done with it, but I want that single roll to take the other guy's strength into account. Sure, I could do that with a competitive test, but then what do I do with the boons, banes, comets and chaos stars that the other guy rolls?

I think there's a very good reason why FFG included opposed tests in the rules. They definitely do have their place. The problem is that the rules they included are broken (they use relative strength difference as absolute difficulty, which leads to really weird results; doesn't scale at all).

Necrozius said:

But sometimes you do want that binary pass/fail scenario (with boons and banes and all) because that already gives plenty of detail (it really does, and that's one of the things that I really love about WFRP3), because you'd never get anything done if you spin every action into a whole encounter of its own.

mcv said:

No they don't scale well and they're not supposed to. They favor the active part and that's how they work. But as the defence against a grapple you can still use defence cards. It's just an attack and the result isn't black and white... it depends on successes, boons and what the card says. I have made some house rules myself because I feel there are things that needs tweaks. But that doesn't mean the game is broken.

If you want to wrestle someone to the ground it's not hard using a competitive test for it. As I already said it doesn't take twice as long to roll unless the GM don't like to roll at the same time as the players. You would be using the "perform a stunt" action card for this.

No matter how you twist and turn, the very core of the rules is that they favor the active part of an action. That's not broken, that's a design descision.

But just let the player wrestle someone to the ground. Next round he can just get up again.

We have had some seriously wicked combats with roof crawling, climbing, jumping from windows and everything under the sun. Not once have I even been in doubt about how to handle a specific situation. The rules are so open ended and easy to work with that anything goes. Just add some white, black and purple dice to balance everything out.

Deleted duplicate post.

Gallows said:

Good lord, man. Of course not! I don't want issues, I want these issues resolved. That's why I point them out.

Gallows said:

I complain because I do have a grasp on what's what. I've got a great idea for more generalised rules for assists, and I'm working on fixing all the other problems I've got with the rules. My point is that I shouldn't have to. WFRP isn't some cheap, untested fan production. It's probably the single most expensive RPG on the planet. It's really nicely produced, gorgeous books, cards and bits, with very clever, innovative ideas. It could be the best RPG ever, if it wasn't for these badly written, badly explained or badly tested rules in the book. Of course the GM can fudge it, but then why have a system at all? Mistakes can always happen, but when they happen with an otherwise high-quality game like this, I'd expect FFG to try to fix it. Explain them in the forum, publish errata, fix it in the next version, etc. And I'm hardly the first person to notice these issues.

Gallows said:

Tackle someone. Wrestle someone to the ground. Convince or mislead someone based on some skill I have. Anything for which I don't have an action card, but which has a direct effect on someone else nonetheless.

Gallows said:

I'm sure many people won't notice any of these issues if they don't try to do anything that's not on their action cards, and if they only play within a single rank. Once you start mixing power levels, you will notice that many things just don't scale terribly well. It's a common subject of discussion (or at least it was half a year ago).

Gallows said:

But they don't. They only favour him when he's strong. Just check what an opposed check between two characters with an attribute of 2 would look like, and compare that with an opposed test between two characters with an attribute of 5. They're both tests between characters of equal ability, yet the first test is very hard, while the second is very easy.

Gallows said:

I never said that the entire system is horribly broken. I'm just pointing to a few rules that don't work the way I'm sure they were intended.

mcv said:

In 20 years there haven't been a single RPG where we haven't written house rules and there never will be. This is not a computer game.

You can tackle someone with "perform a stunt", you can persuade someone with honeyed words or some of the other social actions. They take your skill into account as well as the skill/characteristics of the opponent.

Someone with just two in a characteristic will be crappy at average checks and 2vs2 still gives an average check. Like two fragile school girls fighting. They most likely won't hurt each other too bad. I know what you think about the scaling, but as you gain ranks you also gain a lot of defensive cards to apply in such situations to make the task harder for the opponent and rank 1 characters won't have these cards. It does scale as a whole, but not when you look at the dice in isolation. You need to take defensive cards into account as well (there is one for social actions as well).

By your logic players should be hit more and more often as they rank up, because more skilled/dangerous monsters have better dice pool. But fact is with the rank 4 iron breaker in my group, that he is more capable defensively than he has ever been.

But check out my house rules. Then you'll see that I have also "fixed" things in the system. But NO system will go untouched by our groups. We have always made house rules even for great systems like wfrp 3rd ed. and the storyteller system.

Gallows said:

No they don't. They only favour the active part when he and his opposition are strong. When they are both weak, the test is a lot harder. That's what it means when something doesn't scale. I don't need perfect balance, I just want plausible results.

Gallows said:

I never said the game is broken. I only said that some mechanics are broken. And apparently you agree to some extend, because you made house rules and felt that some things need tweaks.

Gallows said:

And if that was what they accomplished, I'd have no problem with it. I could just add an extra challenge die to everything if I want it to be a bit harder. No biggie. But instead there are mechanisms that just don't scale at all. That's not favouring the active part, that's making the entire notion of difficulty pointless.

Gallows said:

Your advice is to have actions not really accomplish anything?

Gallows said:

That's awesome. The system as given doesn't support that terribly well, though. I do agree that the system is very easy to tweak, and makes it easy to improvise stuff, but none of that refutes my two main complaints: the difference between actions and maneuvers isn't very well explained. Every GM will have to tweak and improvise the mechanics themselves, and not just how to apply them. The notion in the book that any skill roll is a maneuver is silly and useless. Most meaningful skill rolls would be actions.

I really do understand why some critics compare WFRP3 to D&D4. As presented, the game seems to revolve entirely around combat with action cards. It's untrue of course; you can do absolutely everything, and it's a great system for tweaking and improvising. But the way the rulebook presents it, it doesn't do a good job of getting that point across, and it doesn't do much to help the GM with non-combat actions.

Gallows said:

Yes, but what if you don't have Honeyed Words or some other social action. Then you can't persuade someone? If that was true, then there should have been a "Persuade" basic action. There isn't. Surely if I've got Guile or some other social skill I should be able to use it, shouldn't I?

Gallows said:

That's exactly my point: it doesn't favour the active part. It only favours him when he and his opposition are strong. Isn't it silly that a weakling would have a much harder time defeating another weakling (whether it's overpowering him or sneaking past him) than a strong or able guy defeating an equally strong/able guy?

Gallows said:

You can actually take those defensive cards early. If there is one that requires you to be rank 2 (there might be), then I'm not aware of it.

Gallows said:

But that means that you do agree that there are things about the system that are broken, if taken directly from the book.

My group does not houserule a lot, but for WFRP3 I do intend to write down a comprehensive set of house rules and rulings, and hopefully publish them on the web.

BAH, the forums are completely weird today.

Gallows said:

How so?