Dvang had great reasoned replies. But as you can clearly see I was not stating that the edition was BAD.

Nor was I asking for arguements to defend it. Nor is the game that bad to need defence, unlike DND 4e.

I didn't mean coming off like a ****** (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive. A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics. LACK of grid adds to roleplaying. Cards do not limit roleplaying. Cards are just conveniences.

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-). WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying. I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids. The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World. Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story. If you like tactical games, cool! Me too! But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms. When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet? How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'. These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm. Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing. Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas. If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.

c8tiff said:

+1. Halleluja.

I didn't mean coming off like a ****** (rereading it after lunch did reveal that to me)...

After reading numerous 'dont like' threads, it boiled down to:

1) dont like cards (it limits player choice)

2) dont like dice (limits roleplaying)

3) dont like the lack of a grid (not enough tactics)

Often times the above are in the same post...and they are mutually exclusive. A grid does not add to roleplaying...it adds to tactics. LACK of grid adds to roleplaying. Cards do not limit roleplaying. Cards are just conveniences.

While D&D has been moving from tactical->story->tactical....until we see in 4th edition a set of rules that is completely wargame/tactical (ie. every story element has to have a mechanical +/-). WFR3e took the opposite approach and moved towards story (admittedly, I'm a 1e WFRP player, not 2e).

Tactical games are not roleplaying. I saw Vampire in your list...great example of a story game. minimal reliance on tactics/grids. The rest are, for the most part, heavy tactical.

Best stories I've played in came from Mage and a gridless Gamma World. Worst ones have come from the wargames trying to pass themselves off as an RPG.

"i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities"

Lol..son..I cut my tactical teeth on Star Fleet Battles, so hop off the 'i can move my character on a grid' high-horse...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story. If you like tactical games, cool! Me too! But to condemn RPG for lacking tactics due to an element that drives story (ie. gridless) and in the same breath condemn the same game for an element that increases tactics, choice AND roleplaying because it takes away from roleplaying (ie. dice) is inconsistent.

Let me put my Aragorn example in simpler terms. When was the last time you read a book that detailed how far the character ran in feet? How many books have you read where the hero was concerned about getting 'diametrically opposed to get a flanking bonus'. These are things that, as a story teller, I deplore (tried to remove the grid requirements for D&D4e with rules modifications...not worth the effort).

This game IS a radical departure from the norm. Current RPGs have not evolved much in the 30 years that i've been playing. Every now and then a gem comes out that tries to stand out in a saturated landscape with fresh ideas. If RPGs were operating systems, we'd still be using a command prompt.

sorry to be on my high horse again, but its ok if you disagree with me that great combat can add to the experience at the table

c8tiff said:

c8tiff said:

Just because i'm sitting here bored at work...

my group got all hyped on the 4th edition announcement 2 years ago. 3.5 had turned into a muchkinfest of '1BG/1Pal/1Ass/1Sorc/1blah/15zing' prestige classing with a smorgasboard of feats pulled from 6 different splatbooks that had never been playtested together that the game became a steaming pile of feces (yay, Paizo for trying to fix the mess). 4th edition rolls out and, at first, it looked good. Played once and we all stared at each other. All we could say was 'well...the rules are cohesive'.

Now, I understand that story isnt driven by rules, but story CAN be destroyed by rules. My gamer's palette had just ingested the equivalent of 2 pounds of ricecake. Not filling, not tasty, not pleasurable. We just went through the exercise of chewing.

"Well...lets see how the Forgotten Realms handles 4th edition..maybe we just have the wrong take on it". Books came out...tried it again. Left the table feeling like a prostitute who didnt get paid. Broke, screwed, and unsatisfied. It kept getting worse!

I like my RPGs rules light (except for the Hackmaster 5e...that one fills an unusual void for me) and 4e seemed to put everything into a consistent, uniform, box. Bleah.

Of our group, 2 enjoyed the grid tactics...spent half of all combat figuring out the 'perfect movement and positioning'. Left the other 3 picking their nose for most of it. A single combat would take 3 hours.

Zug wrote:

"...the point is that a ROLE playing game (which is what this is), should NOT be concerned about movement tactics. That is not cinematic. That is not 'story'. That is minutia which only gets in the way of the story."

I usually prefer having minis indicating where everyone is positioned, so we don't have to spend time during combats describing it verbally. Leaves more time for roleplaying. Also, WFRP was not traditionally a grid-based combat system - it assumed freeform movement using a ruler when necessary. The grid was added for v2, in order to ride on D&D3e's coattails. But you can easily remove the grid from v2 because there aren't any AoOs or other grid-dependent mechanics.

I should also add that the amount of roleplaying expected by players in combat is inversely related to the amount of combat in the campaign. If you run a game with few combats and lots of intrigue, then players are more likely to hunger for tactical gameplay when combat does arise.

EDIT: stupid quoting code

Herr Arnulfe said:

At least with abstract distances, you don't need to worry about scale :-P . 100'x100' areas were a freaking nightmare to draw out back to back (dwarves were short, dammit...why did their halls have to be so **** big). It'll be nice to even just sketch a box, stick minis in, give relative distance and call it 'done' (glad 3e didnt pitch the minis...I am partial to having that part of the visual).

Zug said:

I'm not saying one method is better than the other, just that there's room for tactical combat even in a ROLE-playing game, especially if you're running an intrigue-heavy adventure where combats are considered a major event.

Herr Arnulfe said:

I should donate one of my players to you..his idea of 'intrigue' is an assassination. Other 4 players are usually struggling to reign him in.

for those of us still stuck in dnd3x trying to get it to work, yes it is too feat and too prestige class heavy so needs to be drastically limited by the dm.

for those of us who have tried 4e, it does have some concepts to pull from but yes the too numerous books are too alike as well as the pcs. To make matters worse there is way too much emphasis on "pushing" "sliding" or "moving" around and around the mat.

for some, the mat limits ideas, they dont think out of the grid and imagine if there is other items like a candlelabra they may be available.

for the group i'm in and run for at times, they think out of the box alot, but when it comes to descent or the rpg version of it warhammer 3e, they turn into boardgamers. Admittedly is was only one exposure, and admittedly is was a very linear story (like descent), and admittedly some of it had to do with the gm. But i NEVER said i didnt like the game or the experience, just that I personally wouldnt invest in it. It just wouldnt get played enough to remind them of their roleplaying skills

Zug said:

I'd have him begging for a combat scene after 2-3 sessions. And then when he finally got one, it would be a tactically rich scene with floorplans and minis that would leave him sated for the next 2-3 sessions of intrigue.

thanks Herr I couldnt have said it better, in fact i wish i had said it :-)

Personally, one of the things which appeals to me about WHFRP 3e is the abstract setup for combat. I've never been a big mini's-and-tactics guy. I do enjoy it sometimes, but for years I never bought miniatures growing up because I would've rather spent the $20 that I had as a teenager going towards a new book for my games. I defintely agree with Zug's analogy with the description of combat in fiction, and I think that the 3e method will proivde the environment for that type of combat description.

I have gotten into the idea of tactical combat in rpg's in the last couple of years, and I've purchased some of the Star Wars mini's to go with my Saga Edition material (finally bought a battlemat too! I had previously never needed one). I've played 4e a few times and I must say that I do enjoy the tactical combat in that system, especially when the other players aren't spending an eternity picking out what they're going to do next. I like the idea that whichever power I choose has a different effect on the damage that I deal or the condition that I can induce upon an enemy. No more, "I hit. Regular damage. Oh, I critical hit. Double damange!"

Fourth edition does bring in the tactical gamers a good bit, and that's just not the overall style that I'm looking to play. I think that WHFRP 3e seems like a game that uses some of the cool things that I like about 4e (e.g. different attack actions instead of just "I attack."; cooldown periods for actions, thereby making it tactical but not rules-heavy tactical, etc.), but does them in a more scaled-back fashion. I'm also not a longtime Warhammer fan, so the Old World is still kind of new to me and I like the fact that it's slightly more analogous to medieval Europe instead of the Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Although, I do really like Eberron. So right now, I'm also taking an interest in the setting itself, which has always been there yet I haven't gotten into until recently. Admittedly, I could get into the setting with the 2e stuff, but I can get the 3e core set on Amazon for about $12 more than I could get just the 2e core book used. I think that it's a good deal, and the quality of the material makes the retail price ok with me.

The fact that everything I need to run a game (and for me, as the usual GM, I'm the guy who always bought all of the game material anyway ) is in one box and retails for just a few bucks under what the core 4e books would cost, which don't come with all of the groovy accessories that WHFRP 3e has is just great! My wife has even given in and is going to try to play. Of course, I'm going to have to play Scrabble as a trade-off.

I hate Scrabble.

c8tiff said:

c8tiff said:

c8tiff said:

demo story was very...eh. I wouldn't base too much on it. It WOULD be nice if the FFG guys would do a podcast or something. wizards podcasts with Wil Wheaton are hilarious AND informative. Might go a long way to sell the new mechanics.

For me, I'll give my $65 to FFG rather than a toothless stripper at my local hangout...doing my bit for the economy! Hoper yer happy, FFG...she told me she was earning money for college!

Enjoy the game, this specially goes out to Y'all as i too hate scrabble, nice sacrifice

as the dm that has all the warhammer 1e and 2e books, all the dnd 3.x and all the pathfinder, and all the star wars saga, and all the Vampire books plus 9000+ minis - i'm sticking with warhammer 2e, that is until i get someone else to buy warhammer 3e for me, until then i know that amazon has it for $65 and i can use my prime membership to get free shipping, i will probably wait for it to be at the local used book shop as all the flood of dnd 4e just a week after it came out

c8tiff said:

Yeah, most guys would trade for something else, like something in the boudoir, or a night of beers with the guys or something.

I choose to play Warhammer.

@johnmarron & all

Thanks. I try to keep a level head, and try to discuss things calmly and clearly. It does no one any good if all people do is yell and call each other names.

c8tiff:

While in a sense I was "defending" 3e, I know and recognize that you weren't saying it was a bad game. I just think you are looking at some things the wrong way, and so getting a less than favorable idea of some things. I will try to show you a different way so that you might reconsider 3e as a campaign-worthy game.

i'm sorry if just being out of position for one round and still having to close with the enemy is a tough test of your tactical abilities

All it requires is a single Maneuver action to get back to engaged. Consider a Maneuver like a half-action from vx/DH/RT. So, you were pushed back a square or two. Now you need to make a half action to get back into striking distance. You still would need to close with the enemy in v2/DH/RT. I don't see the difference in this example. The advantage of 3e, though, is that you can perform multiple half-actions (maneuvers) during your turn, although you suffer a fatigue point for each one after the first. Some good tactical decision-making is needed there to manage those.

Tactical/Grid combat vs abstract:

I admit our group loves to move the minis and use the grid for our v2/DH/RT games. I admit, I was skeptical about the abstract distance rules of 3e. I was fully prepared to make a hyrbrid system that was quasi-grid/quasi-abstract, to give a more "tactical" feel. After running two games of 3e, though, I found as a GM that I enjoyed the abstract movement. Here are a couple reasons:
1) combat did not take nearly as long. Moving squares, counting squares, etc all took more time than the abstract movement.
2) Aided roleplaying. Rather than concentrating on squares, players described how and where they were moving. This was without prompting from me.
3) Aided group tactics. Yes, I felt it actually helped tactics. Look at it this way... when bound by a grid, the players are stuck with what they can currently do within X distance. With the abstract movement, players could say they "wanted to climb on top of the wagon and duck behind the coachman's box" or "hide under the wagon, and kneecap the Wargor when he comes close" or "I run up next to the Trollslayer and attempt to take the pressure off of him by using a Guarded Position." and so on. The players had more freedom to utilize, and roleplay (see #2) group tactics, without being hampered by "being 1 square short" or somesuch.

4) Less pressure to "get everything position in the right square". This leads primarily into #1. It was faster and flowed better. I could concentrate more on GMing and narrating than figuring out which square who was in, and which square the enemies wanted to move into, and if their weapons/spells were in range, etc.

Now, with this said ... there is absolutely nothing stopping you from running 3e with a grid. Nothing at all. The only thing you'd need to do is give a numerical distance to "engaged", "close", "medium", "long" and "extreme" ranges. Engaged is likely 1 square, close is probably 2-8 or so, medium 9-16, long is 17-32, extreme is 33+. Or something similar. There you go, ranges for all weapons, have movement be Agi * 2 (if you do straight Agi, probably reduce the ranges I proposed by half, since in 3e you can move between close and medium with a single maneuver action...unless that also abstracts to a run or full-move. hmm). Seems relatively robust, and this is just off the top of my head. It won't ruin 3e to use a grid, nor does 3e prevent you from using a grid. Don't let the lack of a grid in the rules mean that you can't use the game for a campaign! Everyone house rules at least a couple things for every RPG. Your group might feel the need to house rule a grid for combat. More power to you!

if somehow i wasnt clear, i see your adjustments and if i ran the game myself i will use all of my faculties as a GM to make sure that everyone, including me has a good time, that storytelling is appropriate, that social encounters a rich and fullfilling, and that combat, when it occurs is just a richly rewarding and grip of the seat scary. If i use or dont use a map, use or ignore the abstract range system - I havent decided as for now I will hold off till I know enough people who will do more than just try it once, but more than likely because I feel that the mechanics that my group will "read" into the game will prevent anyone from being the first to buy or run, so i will more than likely see it at a con.

After taking part in one of the demos (I was a roadwarden), I have to say that I was definitely underwhelmed. It didn't have the same feel as previous versions, wasn't as enjoyable, and the gimmicky bits and pieces were just distracting - no real roleplaying went on because everyone was too concerned with what card they should be using or what token should go where. I know the boardgame / rpg argument is getting a bit boring, but to be honest, that's pretty much how it played - too much time tracking bits of card and not enough actually roleplaying.

I won't be buying it when it's out.

just out of curiosity, did your character as the roadwarden also seem to have a very hard time getting enough successes to wound the mutants???

Converse said:

I am really surprised you went to one of the demo sessions based on your negative attitude to the game in your past posts. I am sorry you didn't enjoy the demo, and I hope you find something else which is more your type of entertainment.

Best regards

Allavandrel

c8tiff said:

I know this wasn't directed specifically at me, but I thought I'd chime in with my experience as the Roadwarden:

I took over playing the Roadwarden right before the second battle started. During that combat encounter I only used one offensive attack - Executioner Shot - which was directed at the Big Bad.

I made a decent roll with my pistol, scoring enough boons to activate the -2 soak penalty (-3 with the pistol) and inflicting a hefty number of wounds. I was hopeful that my follow-up melee strike would take him down, but I rolled poorly and did minimal wounds (1 perhaps?). However, the soak penalty took its tool and the other players were quickly able to finish him off in the same turn. In that regard, I felt the Roadwarden presented herself well.

c8tiff said:

No, not at all; if anything, I thought the characters were overly competent, but that may be because I'm used to v2. V3 felt a little more like D&D than WFRP because of that - everyone was scoring hits easily and wiping out the opposition, using their special feats etc.

Allavandrel said:

I haven't always been negative towards it. At first it sounded like a great game; the more I learned, the less exciting it sounded, however. I still thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and give it a try since it was being run just around the corner from where I was staying, but in practice I found it less enthralling than I expected it to.

Don't worry about me finding some other game - I have hundreds of other rpgs that I own, including v1 and v2 WFRP, so I'll still be enjoying myself.

If v3 floats your boat, then I hope you have many happy hours playing it too - it just isn't what I'm looking for.