So now that some of us have gotten to play the demo, this is a post to see what people think about the game. I thought it might be good to start a thread like this since so many of the others are full of conjecture, here we can talk actual statistics, rules, the way things work, etc?

Overall, I liked the game. The dice are capable of doing everything I thought they could and more (at times) then I expected to have happen.

I got the benefit of being able to run with it "off book" a little today and I must say being able to sit back and let players narrate their own success/boons made every roll seem critical. Also, the track for "getting things done" or whatever its called, where players have a certain amount of beats to accomplish their goals even spiced up the module let alone my later play. Overall, I really liked the dice and this particular meter.

I also liked the initiative system. It could use a bit more range (maybe it was just the low characteristic games I got to play) but it seemed like everything was dumped into 0-2 slots, and that's it, but that's just the limits of the rolls I guess that I saw today. Still, I really enjoy this aspect as well and it was nice to flip-flop between people based on the needs at hand. To all those who figure (lead with the big guy), well, they're just plain wrong. It was not, even in the module to lead with the big guy. Everything could be readdressed tactically from round to round and gave a lot of flexibility (and chances for inter-party role play.).

I also really liked the First Aid system that allows to cause harm on healing checks and actually make first aid more complicated (more grim if you will) than a simple, yes I do first aid gain 1d4 hp back or whatever. Loved it to death and I nearly killed the guy we had to save during the demo on a three bane botched first aid check.

The talents were good, but I'd have to see more of them. I don't know if they're worth their cost when skills are so much better than they are (yellow dice are way better than white dice). Also some of the once per session cards seemed needlessly "once per session." The envoy's fellowship skill (add 1 fellowship dice) is nice, but it's not all that nice to develop into once per day. Honestly, I could have seen it once per seen. Other than those technical points they are good and are a nice addition, just not quite revolutionary to the system or gaming as the dice.

I loved the magic systems as well. They are good and sound like a lot of fun to play.

Now here's where I think it wasn't quite right:

I didn't mind the fatigue tokens at all. Honestly. I wasn't a big fan of all the tokens. I do get the feel this game was engineered to be used without a pencil. Well, that's all fine and nice, but wounds, fatigue, stress, all of that could have been done just as easily with a pencil. The wound cards make nice "critical cards" and this complaint is easy enough just to make a character sheet. All I'm saying is, the "board game" feel people complain about may come from it's pencil-less mechanics (though it has nothing to do with a board game). On this same note, I don't understand why there had to be both Fatigue and Stress Counters. What could have been done is combine the two into fatigue counters. Then the character either add together their Will plus Toughness or double toughness to calculate how much they must go over before they go unconscious. The Stress and Fatigue effects could have still just as easily come into effect once the total points exceed the Toughness and or Will characteristic and all of that, but the two pools just add more chippy madness and bookkeeping in a system already loaded with chip book keeping.

The Stance Meter I don't get. Sure I love the dice switching and the idea you can go reckless and conservative, but it's pretty static. I mean, the Troll Slayer constantly just janked it all the way reckless, the elf, all the way passive. It just worked out for the best. Moving it only ever happened because the encounter resets. It's a neat idea, I just don't think it really hits the mark as great design. In my mind there could have been better ways to bring these elements or the meter needed a reason to be more dynamic. I know Jay, if you read that, don't kill me.

The damage could also have been more dynamic, number of successes score more wounds (rather than just a +2 for x amount of successes) begs the question if you need two successes for a +2 damage, why wouldn't 1 success give you a +1 or 3 successes give a +3. There was a point the elf couldn't wound something no matter what they did and I'm never a big fan of that (even in the gritty). You should at least have a fighting chance, the elf did not (except with their bow which you can't use if it charges you).

Now, to the bad...the action cards. Don't get me wrong, I love the action card idea, I like some of the effects on them, I like how they expand options. I also like how you could drop multiple active defenses on a single opponent (you can do that right? We did all day). I just don't think they're well balanced and I don't think they're creating this awesomely dynamic combat system either. So many have zero recharge rate and we spent our time spamming one or two action cards over and over again. They didn't add dramatic or combat flavor (the dice cover that), they just added book-keeping, table referencing (the table is on every card), Double Strike which is hands down one of the best cards (if not the the best) is a zero. Honestly, I don't know why they don't rename warhammer two axes based on how broken that card is. The gun equivalent isn't even close as good. The Backstab card with a 4 recharge is not even close to Damage and side effects of Double strike. I'll admit, the recharge doesn't seem that bad, but it is a bit distracting and focuses more on the resource management of combat than it does on the combat itself. I don't know, not a huge fan, that's all.

Of course, I'm not a gamer who games for awesome detailed combat, specked out combat maneuvers, or anything like that. Sure, I enjoy a good fight, but the story is why I game and that's what I want. These cards actually don't facilitate story, they stand in its way, taking a story down to its component blow by blow, the very detail of combat at its heart. If that's your thing, you're going to love it. If you're not a huge fan of system, you'll probably won't like this part either.

So that's my quick run down. Feel free to rebuddle or post your own (so I can rebuddle ) or whatever, but that was my overall impression. It's way late, I'm tired, and may post more tomorrow.

commoner said:

One of my players mentioned this too, but, you can actually always do damage to something no matter how tough it is. If I'm reading things correctly, no matter how many wounds you do, and no matter how much mitigation something has, there's a minimum of 1 wound . Also, if you get crits for which there are no wounds to put them on, they are converted to wounds. Comets give crits, some actions give +1 crit, etc. You can almost always slip some damage past. So, even something that has a bajillion in mitigation, a good roll with the right skill, with maybe a comet in it, could throw two wounds up and convert 1 to a crit!

But minimum, you're going to do 1 wound.

Well, you can find my complete (and long) review in this thread .

But in short, I liked it, even though there are some difficulties.

Speaking to your points:

I think that the nature of the demo tended to favor the Stance Meters being maxed on way of the other - and for a Troll Slayer, it doesn't strike e as odd that it would stay pretty Reckless. I suspect that more finely crafted scenarios will put players in situations where players will have to be more careful with their Stance.

Concerning Action Cards, I'm not sure that you were playing them right if you were throwing all the defenses down every turn. While I was just a player and only looked over the rules for a short time, I believe that you get one Action for free each turn, and any extras cause Fatigue, which will eventually catch up with you. Someone with access to the rules will have to check me on that.

I going off to another demo later today, but I will say this after spending time thumbing through the materials Friday night and getting a chance to pick Jay's brain some yesterday:

This is the only RPG I've ever dealt with that I feel like out of the box for very little time investiture I could run and me and my friends would have a good time. I came home from The Source yesterday and looked up all the available pre-order options. I know, not much of a review. I'll leave those things to people who can put to words what they think. I'm dealing with gut feeling and raw excitement.

I've already made major comments elsewhere, but I'd like to add:

* The cheat sheet that Nezzir posted will be a big help. The main rulebook probably needed about a 50% word cut to get to the points a little clearer..but I'm not one to complain. I'm just pleased that we have continuing support of the world

I hear you on the double attack card. I hate to have to nerf stuff off the bat, but it might need a petty recharge or something.

jh

I really liked it. Tons of fun. I wish it came out sooner.

Well, I posted some thoughts in my demo thread, but here's some related to what you've said:

1) Yes, it felt great as a GM that I wasn't tied to my "seat". I could stand and narrate of the most part, and do little recording. The players were able to get into the roleplay feel after getting more comfortable with the mechanics.

2) Yeah, the initiative system went well for me both games. I agree, a lot of the rolls ended up in the 0-2 slots. I think you might want to count Boons as well, as a house rule or soemthing. That should give a bigger spread.

3) First Aid was pretty good. Choosing to heal either wounds or critical cards was yet another player choice, as well as the fact that you risk failing and causing more damage.

4) I think some of the talents are extremely useful. The Trollslayer's Charge talent, for example, got socketed in the party slot ASAP in the first party. Exhaust for talents isn't once per session, by the way. Exhaust has a recharge of 4. We looked it up during our first session.

5) Magic seemed to play excellently.

6) We loved the fatigue, and I wouldn't lump them together. Most of the players started getting up in fatigue and/or stress during the combat. The Trollslayer especially, with his WP of 2, was susceptable to stress. The Gor and the Wargor both have the Howl action which induces stress (also, the Fear rating when the Wargor appears can give Stress). He was always on the edge of getting 5 Stress and passing out. None of my players minded the fatigue and stress, and none found it fiddly or cumbersome to track. In fact, they liked the added danger and occasionally had to use their talent to reduce fatigue/stress or the Assess the Situation action to reduce when it got down. Those extra misfortune dice are a pain too. So, I personally wouldn't change it, nor lump them together. The Trollslayer, for example, has a 5 toughness and only 2 WP. He can take a lot of fatigue (needs 11) before going unconscious, but only 5 Stress to pass out. That's a huge difference, and lumping them together into a single value averages both too much IMO.

7) Well, both my games had players change stances from one side to the other. The elf used conservative for his longbow (but kept missing) so finally went to close combat and shifted to Reckless. The Trollslayer, I think during the social encounter, changed to a conservative stance (I think because his stress was so high he couldn't afford to roll a Blood on the red dice). The Roadwarden shifted back and forth a few times as well, I think, because of Fatigue. It seemed to work for my groups. I think one of the "issues" you are seeing is because of the limited action cards the demo PCs have. Most of the Basic cards it doesn't matter which stance you're in when you use it, it has the same effects. Also, I will point out that if the players have significant amounts of Fatigue and it becomes dangerous to use Reckless, so they are more prone to switch to conservative then. If they don't get fatigue, then there isn't as much incentive to change out of reckless (unless they had more action cards that favored conservative).

8) I agree that damage was a bit ... meh. On the positive side, it was pretty easy and consistant to figure out. After the first few times, I could reference the Ungor Beastmen stats without looking. A success was 8 wounds, 2 boons or more was 10 wounds. Every time. This was pretty good for the players, as it became easy to count up how much they did (barring the trollslayer, whose actions cards had a good variety of + damage amounts). On the bad side, it was one of the few things that didn't seem as dynamic or in player/GM control in the game. I think part of this was the function of the few actions cards. Only the trollslayer really had a variety of action cards that did extra damage. And Yes, there is a minimum of 1 wound inflicted, so there can never be a situation where someone is impervious. Someone could have a T+soak of 50, and every hit would still do at least 1 point of damage each time.

9) Yes, you can use any number of active defenses on a single attack. They all have a recharge of 2, though, which doesn't remove until the end of the PC's turn. That means active defenses can only be used once every 3 rounds. I think your issue is partly because these starting PCs have few action cards beyond the basic ones. Also we found Execution Shot to be more powerful than Double Strike. (Although we did have an excellent attack once with Double Strike taking out two enemies in one turn). Remember, the additional blow for Double Strike must attack a different opponent, not the same one. Yes, Double Strike is a good card, and I think it probably should have a recharge of 2. I wouldn't say that it's better than Execution. That pistol is a beast with 6DR and Pierce 1. Also keep in mind that the Trollslayer himself is a beast in melee, with his 5 Strength and trained WS. So *any* melee attack he makes is going to hurt more than anyone else's melee attack. Give the double-strike to the elf envoy, with his 2 S and no training, and it isn't nearly as powerful. Also keep in mind that the Execution Shot can shoot outside of Birgitta's engagement (I believe, I don't actually have the card in front of me), while also giving her a melee strike at the opponent she is engaged with. The Execution shot's ability to ignore soak is pretty excellent as well.

I liked it.

It won't be replacing 2nd Edition for my group but it wasn't bad.

LIKES

• The dice mechanic works well. One roll provides so much more than the binary success/fail outcome.
• The initiative system rocks. I will definitely be adding that to my 2nd Ed games.
• The magic system is solid. I may be adapting the dice and magic system to 2nd Ed.

DISLIKES

• Too many bits to manage. This is the first RPG I have played that requires an elaborate setup and tear down process where so many bits need to be sorted out.
• The whole action/maneuver thing. It doesn't feel polished. Some actions do not have cards - the standard use of a skill for example. If you don't use an action you can't replace it with a second maneuver? And finally the mix of cards and written options. If you are going to use cards then why not have cards for all of your options? This area of the game needs refinement.
• Stress and Fatigue ... the Troll Slayer in our group nearly feinted when the wargor showed up. I think the accumulation rate for both of these needs to be tweaked.
• RULES! The rules need a solid re-edit. Some rules seem to be repeated far too often and critical rules (like the standard use of a skill as an action) seem lost in the mix. Oh, and there needs to be an index.

I am looking forward to buying my own copy of the game. I am also looking forward to the player pack. However, it will take some time and more development before this new edition replaces 2nd edition for my group.

I'm looking forward to getting the game down. I enjoyed running the event, even though I didn't have everything down. As a GM I don't like being tied down to rules, and I think this system provides alot of flexibility to the GM, and the story. I enjoyed what I understood of the game, and I think with a few more tries, and the right group of players, this could be one great game.

I like the idea of the stance meter, and can definitely see creative game masters being able to use them as a mechanic in their games to force characters out of their comfort zone. If a player is constantly aggressive, I'd be inclined to give their opponent's a bonus to compensate for their recklessness. Same for conservative, and familiarity with the system would provide us with better ideas on how to handles boons and banes.

As for repetitive use of the same action cards, I used to play Over The Edge (Atlas Games), and in that system players would be penalized for performing the same action over and over it just broadcasts your moves to your opponent. I would definetly do the same thing in this game.

The stance meter is supposed to be deep for certain characters. The stance dice are almost always more beneficial to use than characteristic dice. Why discourage a Slayer for being reckless or the elf emissary from being cautious? The stance dice already have the built in drawback of stress and delay.

Played it, loved it, wished it would come out sooner... You've probably heard all that before.

I especially like how they tweaked spellcasters (or wizards, at least; I did not have the opportunity to see a priest in action). The use of power tokens resembles "mana points," but this game doesn't have much risk of a caster running out of mana. (But, in true Warhammer fashion, a wizard DOES risk drawing in too much magic, which can be worse than completely running out...)

Weird, there was no wizard in the demo I attended. Would've liked to have seen that.

There was so much in that game handled w/ chits that were extraneous and pointless. Stress, fatigue, non-critical wounds... these are fine as boxes on a character sheet. Especially the face-down wound cards... how silly.

I liked the action cards, but it's terrifying that in the demo, troll-felling strike is supremely worse than double-strike. I was hoping for tactical choices, what I got was "use double strike every turn, or do something subpar." Which is ridiculous... one is a career specific card with a recharge that sucks worse than a basic card. And not just any career, slayer career action cards are worse than that? Curious.

Oh, and the module was flatly horrible. Demo games should involve, at some point or another, actual choices. Railroad modules are awful, and have been awful for over 30 years, and everyone knows this. Demo or not, a branching plot tree with a single choice in it would have been monumentally better.

Loved the dice, loved the way defense worked in that game w/ stacking those defenses, liked all the reactive abilities, loved the initiative track (I'd been trying to accomplish something like that for ages and never quite nailed it as well as that!) I liked the fatigue/stress system, how conservative/reckless played out, and etc.

Very interesting, Terwox. You had a completely differnet outlook than any of my 8 players.
- My players all loved the stress and fatigue, and none of the minded tracking them with tokens. A few were even vocally happy they didn't have to write anything down or mark anything on their character sheet. They also liked being able to look at a PC area and see how stressed/fatigued their fellows were.
- My players seemed to enjoy the wound cards. The Trollslayer from my first game, in particular, made a point to lay all of his out (as you can tell from the photo) as a sort of badge of honor. He liked looking at all of them. Players also liked the fact that at a glance they could see how hurt everyone was (because of the cards).
- Our troll-slayers (especially the first game) found the Trollfeller strike did a lot more damage than the double-strike, and that was the attack of choice. Remember, the additional attack the double-strike gets has to be against another opponent engaged, not the same one as the first damage gets applied to. So, no "3-hits" to a single foe, for example. I do think double-strike is good, and probably should have a 2 recharge instead of a 0.
- None of my players thought the module was horrible. It was a good demo to allow players to learn and experience the mechanics of the game. Don't forget, it is intended to be run in a limited amount of time (as most demos are). So, yeah, it's gonna railroad quite a bit so that the players can experience everything it wants them to. Demo games are *not* designed to give a lot of choices in how they play out, contrary to what you might believe. A demo doesn't have the luxury of the time to do so. The players *do* have some chocies. They can flee/avoid the second combat when the Wargor arrives (the adventure even mentions so, discretion is the better part of valor and all that). In the Social Encounter, the players have numerous choices. They could leave the coach, they could kill the merchant, they could rob the merchant, they can charm him, they can intimidate him, etc.

My second group did a lot more intimidation to the merchant than charm, eventually making the merchant cower and blubber and accede to whatever they wished. My first group charmed mostly, even helping the merchant pick up his boxes, and even reloaded them onto the coach before leaving for town. They got some shiny shillings for their effort. In a campaign, they likely would have gotten the merchant as some sort of contact, or perhaps he would offer them sort sort of job/plot hook.

dvang said:

What? Double strike dealt 15 damage if you rolled two successes. (Str + Weapon 1 + Weapon 2) to a single target. Troll-feller deals what, 13 if you make 3 successes? And it does have armor pen, sure... which no one had any. I never got any extra hits on targets w/ comets, you don't need those for double strike to be better.

All of the beastmen have natural soak (ie armor). I believe it was 1/2/3, for example, which gets negated. The wargor, with T6 and Soak 3, could normally absorb 9 points before taking wounds. Don't forget the DoubleStrike action also gets an additional Misfortune die to use it. Yeah, against the ungors the doublestrike is perhaps better. Against the Gor and Wargor, the trollfeller strike is pretty good, if not better. Maybe it just seemed that way to us, but neither of my players playing the Trollslayer used Doublestrike over the Trollfeller strike. I personally didn't number crunch the two to see which is "better". Maybe I'll look closer at them when I get home. It's also possible the banes and Chaos symbol effect lines make a difference between the cards too.

A few questions overall for the attenders/Gms of the events (please elaborate on answers as you feel are needed)

1. Given mention that some GMs felt a bit overwhelmed by the components/game how do you think a new/novice GM would handle the system when presented to them, or things they are likely to stumble with?

2. What strengths and weaknesses of the system did the demo adventure play to or avoid in displaying? (I understand that the adventure would of been trying to display the mechanics)

3. How do you think the system will handle long term campaigns, and are there any flaws you think will arise due to that or be more of a hinderance over time? (Some systems do tend to handle one-off or heavily episodic gameplay better than others, which is kinda what I am trying to get a feel for)

4. With reguards to the demo adventures concept/story how do you think it would have been taken run for 2nd ed?

5. While you can share components, what is the reality/ramifications/impacts of having to do that?

Hmm.. I'm sure I had more questions, if I can recall them ill post more

Yeah, against the ungors the doublestrike is perhaps better.

Troll-felling strike can only be used against large enemies (e.g. the wargor) anyway.

Actually, the requirement for Troll-Feller Strike is a "you must be outnumbered or facing a physically larger opponent". The actual parameters of that are really up to the GM. Technically, beastmen are taller and larger than a dwarf, even lowly Ungors. (Ungors are listed as the same size and build as a strong and hale human). Gor Warriors are 1-2 feet taller than than Ungors. Wargors are at least a head taller than a Gor.

So, it's quite reasonable that a dwarf Trollslayer could use Troll-Feller Strike against even a single Ungor, since he's only 4 and a half feet tall compared to the 6ft-ish of an average Ungor. If it's 2 Ungors attacking a single Trollslayer, the Trollslayer is outnumbered and also meets a requirement and cna use TFS.

dvang said:

This is are the types of mechanics that I really dislike.
Artificial requirements (that destroy any type of disbelief) that aren't clear enough so endless debate will rage for years.

I did have one question for those of you who tried the demo - was the party sheet used? I haven't seen anyone comment on that yet. I know that some had their mind made up from seeing the designer diary that they likely wouldn't use it, but it really intrigued me. If it was available for the demo, did it work well? How did it impact the feel of the game? Did it encourage roleplaying? Was it more useful as a GM tool or for players? Did it just kind of sit there all alone and forgotten at the edge of the table? My impression was that it would help inexperienced players grasp some of the less tangible aspects of the game: party tension, cooperation, etc. Any thoughts or impressions?

DeathFromAbove said:

DeathFromAbove said:

Never let players discuss things that belong to the GMs fiat on you. State the way you will rule it and there goes, no discussion. Players that seek mechanical advantages by nagging at the GM should never get any.

As for the requirement breaking suspension of disbelief, it does seem weak. I also hat it when rules are justified only by : "it's in the rules". This said, I understand the game balance that designers try to put into their games and I'll give V3 a good try before tampering with rules.

This said, there needs to be a way to "rationalise" or explain the requirements to make them palatable by the players. In this case, I would explain that the Troll Feller strike (that is a Slayer only special ability) comes into play only when the Slayer feels that the situation is dire enough for him to express his utmost fighting skills. A bit like a good hockey team that will play lousy against a lousy opponent, and then spectacularly well against a strong opponent. The Slayer, by definition, wants to go down in flames. Thus when an opponent worthy of a great battle shows up, the Slayer ups the ante and gives it his utmost. Against a lone opponent, it's just one more plain duel to the death... Nothing to ignite the blood and unleach the TFS.

Awesomeness said:

The troll slayer socketed charge.

The envoy socketed quick witted.

Party tension didn't come up (because we were having fun ..PTM seems to me as a way to encourage anti-fun).

jh

Yep, like Emirkol said. The parties socketed talents, like charge. We kept forgetting the special ability. Tension didn't come into play, as both sessions worked together as a group and never delayed on making decisions (not even initiative order). Of course, especially with the first session, I even added a few fortune points to the part pool and they even got a fortune refresh once for all the good roleplaying.

As for the TFS requirements. I expect the intent was Large creatures, like Trolls, rather than merely "larger than the dwarf", which is how it reads on the card. A situation where a Trollslayer would feel it a worthy challenge to use it, is probably a better way for a GM to think about it. A single simple humanoid isn't really much of a danger/challenge to a Trollslayer (normally, anyway). I didn't concern myself during the demo about it, but most likely in a permanent group I will use the "threat"/"challenge" concept for the Troll-Feller Strike requirement.

Dv, our group was constantly forgetting the sockets. I guarantee that established groups won't They're going to start using the heck out of those simple advantages. I do fear though that you're going to start having players telling other players what to do though (Hey bob, put your blah talent in that socket. Mary, put your blah talent to use on whatever). That always annoyed me and will probably have to be pre-emptively be addressed.

I liked that the sockets arent' there for everything in all combinations. Brash young fools didn't have the same sockets as gang of thugs. Give me a while and i'll think of some new party types.

jh

Troll Feller strike is not nearly as good as double strike. The recharge factor of Troll Slayer strike compared to double strike is the first blow. Then you add onto it that double strike, over all drops more damage straight up than Troll Feller. Additionally, double strike allows you to hit another opponent with damage as well. Grant it that may not always be the case, but it is truly fantastic. Then take a step back and look at Double Strike compared to backstab and you'll see double strike is by far better in how much damage it delivers let alone the insanely high 4 recharge on backstab. It makes backstab not worth taking when double-strike is still available. Sure you may later pick it up just for a little fluff, but not at first, and it won't be used all that often when you'll actually lose damage delivered one turn to simply fluff out with your back-stab then go back to double strike, double strike, double strike.

Action Cards as a whole:

Grant it I don't own the set so those that due have an advantage in pointing out the flaws in what I'm saying (which is totally fine), but what I am saying is:

The action cards lack consistency.

Double shot (which is double strikes gun version) is worse than double strike. Now I know pistols are more powerful because of range, etc, but the fact that it is worse will generally drive players toward cards like double strike. The Nimble Strike card is a 2 recharge to simply flip your agility for your strength? What? Having your attack go off strength is by far better anyway since the system rewards all melee combat by the simple fact that strength adds to damage and to hit rolls. Now I know DnD uses this trope, except in D n D your base to hit has more to do with class and strength only adds a menial amount to damage (that was from DnD 3e perspective). So having to take Agile strike in the first place is shooting yourself in the foot because it keeps your damage down. But fluff wise, totally makes since for some except there is also a stacked penalty on top of the card with the recharge. It's just not worth netting that much XP and/or creation points into Agility and the action card when strength, in melee, is just all around better.

I saw this pattern throughout the cards. Recharge is a huge penalty and when cards such as double strike and many others have such a huge benefit for absolutely less cost, it just doesn't make since to invest advancement points and the like into them. Now grant it, some of them have great fluff, like the card which allows you to add your insanities to damage. It's absolutely genius, but for the recharge cost, most of the time it won't add much damage compared to cards like double strike and the card that D'Vang pointed out earlier that allows you to shoot then make a melee attack. Players will quickly realize the zero attack cards in general or card with only 1 recharge are the ideal, so they'll start spamming away.

With that being said, I love the double-strike card and I love Troll Feller and I love the idea behind so many of them, even how they play out, I just want them to be more consistent in their penalty/recharge mechanic versus what their function is.

Opposed Resolution:

This is something that has come up in play that I see being flawed. Sure, I know the progress trackers exist but we've found, many times, that it doesn't always reflect what we need the system to do. For instance, two characters are racing to get to a door first. They are equal distance apart. They both run at it, who gets their first and how does the check resolve itself. Grant it we found a simple house rule of compare successes boons, banes, etc. between the two, but the system actually doesn't account for it at all. Sure, it could be on a progress tracker, but all we would be doing is rolling a series of rolls to get to a single obvious point. It's something the system needed to address and as far as I know, beyond the progress tracker it doesn't.

Honestly, some things could have been better (as I've pointed out from this post), but this game is great and I'm still getting a copy. Sometimes, I spend more time focusing on the negative rather than the positive when it comes to this game, but honestly, it's because I really like it and see where it could be improved. I do feel like it's fantastic so I don't mean to knock it. I just have a tendency to pick a system apart.

What is really great about the game is its simple enough to tailor it to a groups needs and can enhance any gaming style. It really can.

As to Eric and anyone else who still wants all the game upfront, well, this is just a start. Additionally, many games are constructed big system where they throw everything into the manual at once. In all of those games, things don't balance proportionately well (see clerics and monks in 3e or Presence in Vampire: The Masquerade, etc.). Taking their time to give everything a proper treatment is a great idea. I know waiting sucks, especially when your old game has certain elements included or other elements strongly attract you. But given time, all the old stuff will make a cross to the new game. Hedge magic in 2e is terrible and was never really balanced against the Bright Wizards, etc. Hopefully, this careful system of readdressing old elements will yield a better mechanic for these elements (as it should). So just be patient and enjoy the game for what it is, not what it didn't give you yet, but is sure to give you in the future.

Sure, you can say its a marketing scheme, but you also have to take a look at the advantages of the scheme. You're also now don't have to pay for things you'll never use and manuals won't be cluttered full of junk you'd never play with. You will have the option to buy a supliment or not rather than having it forced down your throat. And if they want to make money off the game, so what? Do you like the game, do you want to see it stay afloat and be a force in the market? Because they need money to keep making it and the entire line must be a worthwhile product for the company to keep printing it. Labors of Love can sell well, but labors of love that don't companies don't support and are left for fan creations. So if you don't want to support your favorite game/line don't buy any products, keep complaining they didn't give you everything upfront, and let rpgs die like 2e. If you like the game though, I don't see why you wouldn't want to buy expansions, and great expansions, unlike that dreadful Shades of the Empire book which had great fluff, but was so tailored to certain campaigns it made it an exclusive product.