jasonmichael said:

WFRPv3 is not innovative or original.

WFRPv1 is not innovative or original.

The difference:

FFG claims WFRPv3 is new, innovative, etc...

The designers of WFRPv1 acknowledge that they took inspiration from elsewhere.

The reason originallity has become a debate is because FFG has made a false claim of innovation. How many other games make such claims? Because if we are honest it is very hard if not impossible to design a system that bears no resemblence to any other existing system. Any game claiming to be innovative or original will most likely be proven wrong. Which is exactly why a lot of game reframe from making similar claims.

The second point is unless I have missed it (in which case if someone could provide a link to the statement I would be grateful). Has anyone actually said WFRPv3 is bad because it is unoriginal?

I don't think it is the use of recycled mechanics that has upset people, rather it is the use of mechanics that were not liked when previously playing another game that causes the complaints.

For Example I have seen plenty of I hate cards with my roleplay type comments. But I have not seen any I hate the Cards because other games have used Cards before comments.

An unoriginal game does not equate to a bad game.

jasonmichael said:

now thats what im talking about!!! bold, right to the point, factual and correct, not an opinion but fact! you hit the nail on the head and drove it in with one swing! there isnt a a single, one, uno game that does what WFRPv3 is doing....yeah some of the things are like others but....thats what happens....its working off ideas and FFG originals (party sheet, conservitive/reckless stances) and bring it together in the reeses peanut butter cup of RPG's....nice and taste....smooth, creamy, sweet and salty....just right

Foolishboy said:

Luther in his "WFRP3E turn off's: sum up" stated that the card where bad and ik for a fact Peacekeeper has said it to...with countless other...im not digging up old posts to prove you wrong...thats a waist of time....read the forum....then maybe you will see something...its innovative....your stuck under your old school rock....clime out and see the sun

Farin said:

Did either Luther or Peacekeeper state that the use of Cards was bad because other games had used Cards in the past?

or

Did they simply say that they did not like the use of Cards?

Foolishboy said:

luther idk but Peace has yes...correct me if im wrong peace but im very sure you have said that

Farin said:

I say lots of things.

Some of that has included "the game may even be great and work fine, but its not for me" as well as "it looks clumsy and clunky" and other things.

I have never stated that I hate 3E cause of cards used in other games. Heck I enjoyed the MasterDeck used with MasterBook and the MasterSystem, and incorporated the deck into many other game systems. And I have never said that 3E sucks cause it is unoriginal, sure Im part of the anti group and I have repeatedly stated rules and ideas are not innovative or original (even when mixed and used together) but that is usually in response to those who say it is original and innovative (like FFG).

I dont like the way cards, tokens, special dice and other items are used so far in the sneaks we have seen. Not because of its lack of originality but because it just looks slow, boring and restrictive.

I don`t care if the game is innovative or not. rather I don`t care of discussing the semantics of "what is new and innovative".

My first impression of the game, was yes this is new this is innovative. I might just be ignorant for not having a detailed knowledge of all the RPGs that are out there, or have been there. Still even though Its have been done before, for me its still feels innovative, the system may have been used for another rpg, but not for WFRP, so I am exicted how it will turn out.

Its like the wonderful invention of Chili-icecream, both ingredients for themselves do nothing, but when put togheter you might say that Chili-icecream is pretty inventive. I have yet to taste it, but people who have said it was unusual but rather good.

Hurrayh for Chili-icecream! Hurrayh for Warhammer II!

jasonmichael said:

This is where I strongly disagree. WFRPv1 and v2 offered a very different roleplaying experience to D&D. WFRP was an alternative rather than a rival. You only have to ask the fans of WFRPv1 and v2 to learn that many of them either did not play D&D at all due to a dislike of D&D style games or else used D&D for very different scenarios to those that they played with WFRP.

Mal Reynolds said:

My knowledge of RPG's is not that extensive in fact as a teenager I mostly played WFRPv1, then did not roleplay for nearly ten years I only came back to it early this year and started playing WFRPv2. I have tried a few other games but not to any great degree. Despite my lack of RPG knowledge I do not feel that WFRPv3 is new or innovative. I honestly cannot see anything in WFRPv3 that is groundbreaking or revolutionary. The mechanics all seem pretty standard.

I cannot help but feel that many of the fans claiming WFRPv3 is new and inventive are really just saying that they like the look of WFRPv3.

The lack of innovation does not make WFRP a poor game. I'm quite interested, initially so was my GM. Unfortunately nobody else in our group is interested, but they were going to play because the GM was going to make them, however, talking to him at a weekend game he has been less than impressed by the last several designer diaries. So at this point I'm not sure if anyone I know will ever want to play WFRPv3.

Farin said:

Luther said no such thing. Luther said one of the complaints about the new version was all the fiddly bits and Luther agreed that this was a turn off for Luther and some others. Luther, however, has also stated that Luther understands that this game is designed for other folks besides Luther and is happy to stick with 2e and let the new folks grock on 3e because a successful FFG will make more of the games Luther does like, like Rogue Trader and the best **** boardgames in the world.

Unfortunately, Luther is often misquoted by folks who think it is a heresy to not like the 'messiah' of RPGs and who throw screaming hissy fits in defense of it, much in the vein of the retarded kid under a blanket on Youtube screeching and crying about Brittany Spears.

"LEAVE WFRP3E ALOOOOOONE!!!"

macd21 said:

To the merit that you are correct, I'm pretty sure that GW told FFG to make a new third edition or this wouldn't have even come up as a product under FFG. From what I've seen, FFG has basically reprinted everything BI created for Dark Heresy. And they are basically using all the design from BI's Rogue Trader development before it was absorbed back into GW.

GW is pretty tight about how their materials are used. It's obvious to me after 15 years of having purchased, read and talked to Games Workshop people. If you have any doubt about it, read about how they kept Relic under their thumb during Dawn of War 1 and 2. GW basically made them jump through small, controlled hoops while developing the games, and even made them re-do some mechanics and gameplay for DoW2. That's how controlling GW is, and I believe that same control impulse is being applied here. All that, and having actually worked with GW in the past, especially in the novel/printing department. @_@

GW isn't completely unaware of the RPG market. They saw what WotC did with D&D 4e and it's initial success. That's what they want, that's where they'll sight their target, and FFG has some freedom to get there. But they still have a pretty good idea what they want, and convey that quite clearly to the developers.

Luther said:

i hope you arnt calling me that luther....as much as i want to keep my cool....that will not be a pretty scene

Luther said:

Ah-hahahaha. I don't know what gave me a better chuckle. The blanket visual or you refering to yourself in the 3rd person. You should totaly contact that guy, Chris something-or-other, and get him to make a video. Hahaha.

I've read less ad hominem attacks and blanket statements in an abortion or evolution debate.

McClaud said:

I don't think the relationship between FFG and GW works that way.

Selling the licences to produce the RPGs and boardgames to FFG was an easy way for GW to make some money, as they couldn't produce the games themselves. As such anything that FFG makes is a bonus product as far as they are concerned. Other than keeping an eye on the IP (making sure FFG don't declare that the dwarven holds have decided that the best way to deal with the goblin menace is through peaceful negotation and forgiveness of past crimes etc) I think they give FFG free reign.

GW don't 'want' anything from FFG except licence fees. I think that FFG probably insisted in a lot of freedom to do what they want in the licence negotiations. The decision to make a third edition instead of sticking with second would have been FFG's. GW are probably grateful that a successful company has agreed to pay for the right to produce high-quality GW merchanidice that GW aren't interested in making themselves, the last thing GW wants to do is to endanger than arrangement by putting too many demands on them.

macd21 said:

Except I know for a fact that FFG doesn't work that way.

If you look at licenses that FFG has taken internally to use to make games, they don't normally go outside what is already there, and work closely with the original owner/developer of the IP when publishing the game.

A friend of mine got to actually ask that question at Eissen . The answer was: GW was planning on making a third version of WHRP a year and a half ago - BI even hinted at it on the Black Library, but BI was terminated before they got around to it. GW then shopped around for a publisher and developer who would work closely with them on all their projects, and Fantasy Flight Games was the best fit.

One of the things that Games Workshop expect from FFG in WHRP v3 is that it competes with D&D 4e on equal footing.

So there you go.

EDIT: I'm not trying to get in a tug-of-war here - I'm merely stating what I know to be the truth and what people from the company have said themselves. Until they say otherwise or respond differently, I'm going to take what they said FIRST as the reality. I've actually worked with FFG and GW in two different situations, which is why I come to their defense at times when people have a misconception of how things work for these companies.

Okay, folks, it's getting a bit heated in here. Lay off the personal attacks, please.

- Jeremy @ FFG

Silent Star said:

To bad that your friends and GM is not impressed by the game. Maybe you`ll have a chance to run it at some con, or pre-release event? If so they might change their mind...or not. I`ve have read on other threads that some interesting things from Essen or (Eissen) a place in Germany where FFG was represented in a pre-release event of Warhammer 3. a Few of the forumites that where against the new version now have changed their stance on this matter. maby will be the case of your friends as well?

I think that some supporters of the new edition, might find the wrappings of the game briliant, and thus say its innovativt and revolutionary. By just evaluating the contends, I will think they are wrong.

however it alll comes to his or her own experience with RPG, if you feel the ideas presented in the diaries as innovatively and creatly changes your perspective of the rpg, you might say it has a revolutinary effect on you. its all in the eye of the beholder. For me it "feels" innovative and new because it might spark another interest or revive our interest for warhammer in general. But if arguing from a strict neutral point, you might say that you`re right. very few things are innovative these days (please pardon my english, its not my inherent language).

I'd call it "The transitional fossil" as it is the missing step between BoardGames (Warhammer Quest) and RPGs (WFRP) ;-)

Ok... another venom spit... but take this one with a bit of humor...

Erik Bauer said:

Ha ha, this is precisely why my players like this new system. For us, it IS a cross between Warhammer Quest and RPGs.

Despite how many games we've played (sooo many systems) we ARE casual gamers.

Necrozius said:

Good for you, maybe you found the system that is good for you.

I'd like to point out to the people who kept questioning my initial statement that Games Workshop had a very, very tight handle on FFG's development -

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=904

Jay Little and even one of the old BI people mention that Games Workshop had tight reigns on the entire design process from the start, because they wanted certain things out of the new version. That everything was talked over with Games Workshop before it was implemented into the design. Even the new dice mechanic was something GW was pretty adamant about implementing in the early design phases.

@ Erik Bauer :

And if the trend continues, more and more people who are entering RPGs are casual gamers up front. And I think that's Games Workshop's/Fantasy Flight Games' target right now. They can continue to make money off reprinting the old properties, since the old gamers will continue to buy it, but the new stuff has to appeal to the MMO/boardgame/video game audience.

I will cast my vote for the (IDS) Independent Dice System.

That is the best name I have heard so far. I like the sound and feel of "Independent". It invokes the feeling of strong unique leadership, forging ahead of other systems and which can serve as a unique example to other systems. It also aptly describes the system based on the unique dice characteristic. Also, it rolls down to a nice short acronym in IDS.

And to those of us who apparently believe that innovation does not count if it builds on older ideas:

"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants." - Sir Isaac Newton

IDS

Independent Dice System, I like the ring to that.

Bravo to that person who came up with IDS, I second that.

Just researched it, was McClaud back on page 4 who came up with IDS