superklaus said:

No, you're right. 'narrativism' is imagining a reason for doing those things and putting it in words. Hold on and I'll dig you up some good resources on how to roleplay. Oh, wait. The new Warhammer has some great material on that. You should check it out

Hellebore; you do have some valid points, but the "Warseer tone" really isn't appropriate outside that community (or within it, but that's a discussion for another place and time). I'd prefer to see this community remain free of that type of unconstructive and tiring negativity.

As I noted there, most of the actions are not "kewl powers" that give any implication of magical source or superhuman ability. They are *mechanically* unique, I'll agree, as are the recharge rules. Both are, indeed gamey, but that's a concession WFRP 3 and FFG seem to be making. Gamey does not equal bad, but is certainly devisive.

sudden real said:

I can see where you're coming from and there are tons and tons of gamers who love special moves. It's not just the fact that it gives them as players more creative control (doing movie stunts), but it also gives them more of control over their character's life and death since they have power to make sure they stay alive. Exalted is powered by people throwing around special powers, except in that game, they are called stunts and there is a great deal of debate how to arbitrate those stunts a character wishes to perform. The cards give an immediate way to gauge stunts and that's a great aspect of pre-written powers as it prevents system tedium (i.e. the debate over how much is gained and at what penalty) and allows the narrative to not get bogged down in system decisions. The action cards, for the most part, seem to be designed with flavor in mind rather than the system effects as most of them seem to be only marginally better then a standard roll.

I don't know why people feel Spam Order versus individual power spam will be more exciting though, as it will just create another form of static combat where eventually after we've watched the troll slayer Troll-Feller, Double Strike, Troll-Feller, Double Strike eighty million times the same form of boredom will be created as roll to hit, roll to defend. This defense of the cards I always feel misses the boat. Sure the cards are great, but they won't prevent combats becoming static in their own right. You could mess up single power spamming just as easy as you can mess up card rotation, taking the same level of creative thinking on the part of the GM in both accounts so that's not really a defense of them either. Again, making a combat more interesting is in the hands of the players and GM, not the system and ultimately comes down to setting and what is at stake for the players in the fight. If you go from room to room slogging through zombies (which can be fun) continuously without something else at stake, combats will always get boring (unless that's your thing, I know lots of people who love a good dungeon crawl).

I also don't think the cards absolutely facilitate narrative play as they are more concerned with the resolution of a task rather than the resolution of the conflict. Let me explain this a little more, just to be clear. The cards themselves focus everything to the resolution of a specific task. They turn the story of the characters trying to get to the tower to save the princess into a story about slogging through guards than actually saving her. If the story now was about kill-counts and endless slaughter they may help facilitate that story, but simply rescuing a princess from a tower they actually inhibit the story. This is task orientation 101, which is only exemplified when having to move around recharge counters (put two to remove 1 immediately) directly states that the nature of the conflict is not what's important, it's how the task is being executed is what's important. That effect then directly disrupts the narrative flow. Of course conflict resolution rather than task resolution is not necessarily more fun and cards with special powers certainly is fun (for some and for others at certain times) and totally has its place. In general, most RPG's are based around what you do and how cool you do it. If that wasn't the focus, we'd see a lot more games about being a pizza delivery boy in the modern world delivering pizza's with no form of supernaturals in the setting at all of any kind. Clearly, there isn't these sorts of games at all on the market.

My only personal problem with the cards is how the ones I've seen detract from the power of the dice and in ways counter the effectiveness of both tools. For a climb check, there are no card so Boons and Bane effects are decided by Players and GM'S alike. Then combat rolls around and Boons and Banes are decided by the cards and the GM and Players have little room to say what happens without stepping on a card effect. You see Troll Feller has an effect off of boons that gives a +1 critical and ignores armor. If you act without the card you can't do that effect. This way, the system limits the narrative power of the dice because a player without Troll Feller may roll the same amount of boons, comets and whatever, but the GM (or player) can't decide they do the effect of Troll-Feller because those effects are specifically governed by a card. Sure you can house rule it and say it can, but by doing so you're destroying the need of the cards (hence the two tools work against each other). To focus this point, if you have a dock hand and a Troll Slayer in the same party and the Dock Hand rolls all the required dice effects to activate all the powers on Troll-Feller you can't give him all (or even any) of the effects of Troll-Feller because the Slayer spent points to get Troll-Feller. If you did, the Slayer would wonder why he had to pay points for something the GM would reward automatically. Just as someone with two weapons won't be able to use double strike (even though they are armed with two weapons which meets the requirement) because they haven't purchased the card, therefore they can't do it because someone else has already purchased it or could purchase it.

What I would have rather seen is cards which give benefits that stack with the dice resolution, rather than limiting a great deal of dice effects to specifically ascribed powers on a card. I do understand Boons have to be spent, but you can't spend boons to do card effects without the card, even though, without their pre-described limitations, they could. Now, if Boons weren't spent and all boon effects occur simultaneously it would have been a better way to go. That way if the Troll-Feller guy throws 3 Boons and gets whatever the 3 Boon effect of the card and whatever else 3 Boons might mean (GM and player decision), then it would be great. That way the Dock Hand could get all the benefits of the Troll Feller card, but not gain the standard narrative bonuses the three boons allow (making him less effective than the Troll Feller card). It could be house-ruled that it works this way, but that may not work because having cards would be way better than not having cards based on how those cards are currently represented in the system.

Of course, this simply could be that my philosophy behind the dice is quite different than what the system allows them to do. I can't say for sure as I have not read the system yet.

OsirisDawn said:

I agree with Hellebore in that I don't like the concept of a cooldown in a pen and paper RPG. Part of the reason I think is because the cooldown is such a staple in computer RPGs, it makes it feel especially artificial in a pen and paper RPG. But until I actually play (and I would like to try before I buy) this game, I will hold my judgment. A few people mentioned that the game is flexible, hoping that's true.

I'm interested that you mentioned GURPS. I've used GURPS to run a warhammer mini-campaign before and I think GURPS is a natural fit for the gritty realism of the warhammer world...how would you compare WFRP3 to GURPS? Hearing you say WFRP "rejuvenated" your interesing in RPGs was good to hear too.

The use of special moves is pure product marketing. You will get a finite selection of special moves represented in the core box set. At some point its probably likely that you will tire of them or your character will outgrow them. Gaining more of these special moves will no doubt involve more cards in boxed suppliments; we already know this from the Adventurer's Kit.

Now if you get a lot of enjoyment out of the game then fair enough, dig deep into your pockets. However I feel this only influences strategic play that deviates from playing a role in favor of managing a character's game resourses to achieve progress.

It's important to note that the game could be run completely with the universal, Basic actions; this would be similar to versions 1 and 2, and still tactically diverse. The specific, named actions (of which most customers had only one or two to start) are not the *limit* of what they can do, only an addendum; a signature or preferred move that they may try on a limited basis, or especially draining actions like casting spells.

For the most part, however, the interactions come through basic actions, some of which are extremely open-ended and provide nothing but a basic mechanical framework for performing a skill test or attack.

Actions in WFRP do not funciton like MMORPG or D&D 4e abilities in practice. They are not the baseline, or end-all, be-all of what characters can do. A character would not be disadvantaged by not selecting special actions and always sticking with the basic set. Possibly less colorful and diverse, as they would need to attempt fancy manoeuvers (such as effectively swinging with two axes) through Perform a Stunt - WFRP 3 is built to apply consequences rather than outright restrict actions. The action cards are best thought of as "trained skills" rather than D&D 4e-style "special attacks".

morskittar said:

Warseer tone? Wow that's a loaded statement. It can quite easily be read to say 'any tone not positive is not welcome.' As for Warseer I've been on these forums since they were opened, this is how I talk here too. If you don't like it, well tough. I call them as I see them and provide evidence for my opinions.

An articulated and evidence based post, albiet negative, is not uncontrusctive. If you don't like someone being negative about your favourite new game, don't bother reading or commenting on it. I stopped posting in this particular FFG forum because it was starting to fill up with pro WFRP3 fanbois and there was no point in discussing it for me.

However, this particular point is one near and dear to my heart. So I created a NEW THREAD about it. I haven't intruded on everyone elses 3rd ed joy, haven't trolled other threads by inserting such disliked negativity into them. If people wish to read what I've written they can, but don't come in here and tell me I can't make a thread about a topic in a message board because you don't like it. Don't read it. I'm not reading the ones gushing over the perfection of the this game, I'm not posting in the joy threads about how their positivity is uncontrsuctive and tiringly naive.

As for the previous statement regarding magical elves and dwarfs, the setting tells us its limits. Warhammer the setting does not use special moves and cool downs in combats. Thus they should not be in the game. Just because the setting is imaginary doesn't mean it doesn't have its own rules. Those rules define the setting by what it can and can't do. The closest thing to super powerz are the spells that create magical swords etc. A human coachman does not have special moves, a human duelist does not have special moves, a dwarfen iron breaker does not have special moves. Their skill in combat is represented by their Weapon Skill.

Now to the arguement over realism etc. I don't like super realism in games, but I don't like abstract rules either. If there is a rule, it has to make sense within the setting. The rule needs to be 'setting balanced' first. Cooldowns are not a feature of the warhammer setting, not even wizards in warhammer have cool down. The closest mechanics you get that in Warhammer is spells, but the dice pool for that represents the amount of power a wizard can safely wield within the timeframe alotted. He has the same number next turn. In the actual setting wizards are only limited by their experience and the time taken to cast.

Logic in an RPG is paramount, because they are used to simulate a world more detailed than you see in wargames et al. We are taking on a role, which IS a simulation. But it is also a game and requires rules to represent that simulation. But the setting should not be sacrificed for the game. Good game design creates synergistic rules with the setting because afterall, we are playing Warhammer not dice and cards. The rules are the framework for the game, but not the purpose of the game. The purpose is to pretend to be someone in warhammer and people in Warhammer don't have cool downs.

If rules are logically tied back to the setting then I have no qualms, even if they are abstract. Because they are internally consistent with the world they are portraying. People get tired in fights, thus any special attack costs fatigue. Now you have an internally consistent and logical reason as to WHY a character can only perform double attack once or twice a day - he's too tired to do it more than that many times. As he gets tougher he can do it more. The result is a fairly abstract rule that also synergises with the setting and ends up creating a realistic image with unrealistic rules.

It also still emplys tactics in it because players can see how much fatigue each ability costs and how much their character has left. Thus they can plan for their use. Most people have a good sense of their level of tiredness, I know when I'm jogging I can judge how much more oomph I've got left and attempt to push slightly past that (i can probably only make it to the tree so I'll try to go past to the letterbox). Still in keeping with the setting.

My problem with these types of rules is the focus ON the rules. D&D4th is another good example where they are so enamoured with the rules for the game that they seem to think the rules ARE the game. They aren't. Rules are there to facilitate the game, they aren't the purpose of the game.

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

"...that type of unconstructive and tiring negativity." was intended to clarify that I was not talking about all negativity, only belittling comments such as "kewl powerz" or "cheap thrill" that don't further the core argument but imply a connection between liking special actions and shallow or immature spelling or behavior. "Fanbois" might be classed the same. Regardless of your intent, going out of your way to use aggressive language like this doesn't add to the argument, at best, and may detract from it. If you *do* feel that being positive about the action cards makes someone stupid, immature, or the like, just tell them! Then it's clear where we all stand.

Though I'm taking issue with your tone and delivery, I don't disagree with your core argument. FFG has insisted on special moves, and they are very mechancially-driven. WFRP 3 seems to be very deliberately more rules-focused than previous versions (which was my second comment; you're absolutely right there); much more in step with current game conventions and Warhammer Fantasy Battles (which could also be very gamey and has artificial "once per game" type restrictions).

Generally I would dislike this, as it doesn't make sense for Warhammer as a setting (as you've pointed out). In practice, however, WFRP 3 doesn't use these actions to restrict what characters can do, only grant different "pre-packaged" ways of doing them. You can buy down cooldowns, and characters without a specific action may still be able to attempt that action. If a fancy double-axe strike cannot be used a second turn in a row, the character may be able to exert himself, or use one of the generic action cards (Perform a Stunt) to follow through (while off balance) and repeat a similar manoeuver. If the system wasn't fun and didn't support open-ended roleplaying and character actions, I would (for my part) be far less excited about it. My excitement didn't generate until I'd actually played the first time.

I gather that you'd still object to this pre-packaging of rules and character actions. Entirely fair, and that's the concession FFG has made, likely to help along sales and be able to continue to support the game. It's a different philosophy from v1 and v2, and one that's distinctly more modern; rooted in the success of tabletop wargames, CCGs, and D&D 3 and 4e.

Hellebore said:

Says who?

In the 90s TSR business model was really centered around the GM. Box sets, adventure modules, and lots and lots of settings. Among TSR's other problems was the fact that players weren't buying books so heavily geared towards

3x changed roleplaying because it created player crunch. Feats, special abilities, prestige classes. Books sold well because of the crunch. Now we've entered an era of RPGs that are about crunch but very concerned about organized crunch. 3X wasn't real organized, 4E, particularly with the character builder is very organized. I feel the same about this game.

Crunch Sells. You couldn't sell very many copies of the Diceless Amber Roleplaying game in today's market. Not because it's sucks(it only requires imagination), but because players like to buy crunch (that's the majority of the market). People sell "what you need" for your character to succeed.

Necrozius said:

Says the warhammer setting. There is rather a lot of information about it. I can't recall the last time Felix Jaeger did a patented special move. Abilities in warhammer that are one use are generally temporary enchantments that lose power once used.

Warhammer has always been considered 'gritty' mainly because the people are not very special. Special powers come from magic items and they aren't a dime a dozen like in D&D.

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

Hellebore said:

I'm also on the simulationnist light side of the fence.

I've followed the diaries closely and read all the demo threads.

I gather that there are no actions that are only allowed once per day.

I also hate recharges, but am considering to add one misfortune die to the pool per recharge token left on the card to alleviate that.

The backstab isn't a "sneak on the soldier" action, it's an action for use during a melee. So it's more of a, stab the guy not looking at you, action. I don't know what the rules are for striking an unaware and motionless target. Most action cards suffer from misleading names, you have to analyse the effects to truly understand what they are about.

What I mean by these tidbits of info, Hellebore, is that the game seems at least good enough to give it a try. If someone in your entourage is planning on buying it, try it out, and come back here to tell us what you think. I feel a lot like you, but I'm willing to try it out, because there are some interesting things in this version.

Abstract movement.

The dice, just because they allow failures with boons and the opposite, and modifiers become dice, I like that.

Systems to make the GMs job easier when managing critters.

Crits right from the start.

Temporary insanity.

Fatigue and stress.

And things seemed to be geared towards the story, at least that's the intent. We'll see in the end.

Also, most rules that bug me seem very easily houseruled. That's good. If cards are that bad, I might just scrap them altogether and just keep the basic actions, plus maybe some other cards as additionnal basic actions.

Why be so sure of your dislike before trying the game ?

Lastly, setting wise, WFRP has lost it more or less since v2, IMO. Or since Doomstones. Or to put it another way, what we like about WFRP is the staple of just a few of it's writers, namely those who wrote the v1 core rules and TEW. Since those writers are gone or without editorial influence, the lustre and tone is gone too. That's just... inevitable. It's authorship and you can't replace an author without changing the tone.

What's important for me is : does the game let me play WFRP TEW style. If it does, then all's fine by me. I had to houserule v2 to get there and I expect the same from v3.

Now regarding cards vs skills vs specialisations.

V3 considers combat and social "duels" as the most important parts of gameplay. I pretty much agree. A good session usually involves these two elements. RPGs are about social interaction first and foremost (I mean, social interaction in a fictious world) and also about the thrill of dangerous dice rolling that can make the story flip on its backside or kill a character. Those are the things that take about 90% of game time. Skills like carpentry, swimming, or Read/Write will fill ou the last 10%.

Do you roleplay in detail the use of the hunting skill ? Rarely. Do you roleplay in detail the use of the Charm (or Guile) skill ? All the time. That is why I think FFG is just acknowledging what the game is about. Because combat and social interaction are the heart of the game, they decided to make the mechanics more precise and complex here than eleswhere. At least that is what the action card mechanic seems to be. With these cards, they fleshed out common uses or original uses or variable uses of the combat and social skills and wrote for these uses a series of predetermined results. They basically did what the GM has to do when these things happen: determine difficulty, determine the magnitude of the success or failure.

Personnally, I thought that v2 didn't give enough guidelines for adjucating skills tests, especially for combat and social interaction, but also for other skills. Making modifiers up on the fly is easy, but when the said situation comes back again and again, you need to be consistent ! And guidelines printed in a rule book help you do that. Guidelines printed on card seem even better to me. The GM doesn't even need to inform the player of the modifier or result, the player can do that for himself, silently. Less gamespeak.

So I can see that these cards might actually help me. Of course, ridiculous names and strange recharge rates might bug me if they seem out of setting, in which case I shall modify or destroy those cards.

In any case, I reserve judgment for when I know what this game is really about.

Hellebore said:

Is that right…

• Felix brought his blade to the guarded position. [Guarded Position]
• Gotrek chopped into the chest of his foe. Mail exploded outward from the Goblin’s chest where the huge axe impacted. [Thunderous Blow]
• Aldred charged within the sweep of the Ogre’s huge wrecking ball and stabbed upward through the creature’s stomach. [Nimble Strike]
• Johaan Zauberlich produced a scroll and chanted a spell. A ball of fire appeared in his left hand. [Great Fires of U’Zhul (fireball)]
• At the last moment Felix rolled to the side and the club hit rock with a loud crack. [Dodge]
• Felix twisted and lashed out with one boot, sending the Goblin flying. [beat Back]
• …He dived forward impaling the Goblin before it could rise. [setup Strike]

There are also examples of assisting, support manoeuvres, and defending others.

I could go on.

And this is all from two pages in one story. The story is “The Dark Beneath the World”. It is the third Felix and Gotrek story every written (and I believe the first published – in White Dwarf). This story, and in particular, this combat, was the inspiration for the painting on the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay v1 cover.

So… I’m going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here.

The only way an aquired action card will play out like a "Special Move" or "Super Power" is if the GM and/or players insist on characterizing it as such.

I suppose there are those who could have described gaining a second or third attack (or fourth in 1st Edition) as gaining Super Swing Speed Power or some other rediculous concept inconsistant with the setting, but I doubt many did.

Let's compare the Slayer from 2nd Edition with the 3rd Edition version.

The 2nd Edition Slayer spends 100 XPs to gain a second attack. From now on the Player announces their character will execute a Swift Attack during 95% of the remaining rounds of every combat for the rest of the campaign.

Wow - that really adds to the setting.

The 3rd Edition Slayer spends 1 AP to gain Troll-Feller Strike. Now the player balances this attack style with others the character may have acquired. The Slayer attacks with an all-out ferocity which could result in mutiple outcomes. Sometimes the Slayer will follow-up this deathblow with two more all-out attacks, very recklessly (three levels deep on the Reckless Track, and spending one FP per turn). Other times he can only get off one such blow every couple of turns as the enemy is guarded against such an attack, and it takes time to set them up for it (normal recharge rate). He could fail the attack so badly that it takes the wind out of him, or weakens his confidence his ability, or alerts the enemy to the tactic (or any number of rational, thematically consistant reasons), so that he is unable to try this again for several rounds (multiple skulls - for example three could add a fatigue, and another recharge token to the card).

All these effects, and many more, can result from engaging in this particular type of action, or attack. Both good and bad things can happen with the same roll - for example, unloading a +6 Damage hit, along with 1 Critical, but at the same time leaving himself completely open and largely defenseless for this round, the next, and the next - until his turn. At the same time suffering a fatigue, and taking a wound as he forced his way through the oponents defenses in a blind drive to destroy him, allowing a desperate strike from his opponent to slightly wound him.

Afterall, WFRP, in all it's incarnations, has never attempted to simulate a single blow, but rather a whirling melee of multiple feints, glancing blows, and the occasional telling strike - all occuring within the mechanic of a single roll of the dice for each combatant.

I do not see how taking two hit or miss attacks as described in a rule book can be more consistant with the setting than the use of an action as described on a card.

Hellebore, the actions aren't all that special. Most of the actions anyone can take, as long as they have the requirements, which are generally Agi 3+, S 3+, etc. There are a couple Slayer only, and such, restricted to a career, but those are few. So, in fact they are really just Advanced Basic actions. So, a Dockworker and a Mercenary can both acquire the Double Strike action. It's not some uber-secret special move that is super-hero kewlz insta-death like you seem to be thinking. They are actions, like v2 had Strike To Stun, Swift Attack, Lightning Attack, All Out attack, Feint, Manoeuvre, etc. Only, there are a lot more of them, and they have a wider variety of effects. Yes, they are slightly more restrictive (in that a PC must purchase them with Advances). Yes, the majority of them have recharges they the same one can't be used every round. There are also a heck of a lot more of them and they do so much more, especially for the story. As mentioned, when someone in v2 got Swift attack ... if they had a full action that is all they ever did. in 3e, that will rarely happen. Much like a real fight, an opponent will tend to mix up their attacks and try to throw their opponent off guard. If a PC really wanted to, there are ways to push themselves and reduce the recharge to use an action faster. There have also been some interesting, and worthwhile, suggestions for house rules to work with the system yet minimize the recharge feel if that is what floats your boat. I really suggest you find a way to try the game, before making a definitive decision about how the recharge works for you or not.

heptat said:

Its hard to compare.

I always felt GURPS is very narrative with an underlying hardcore engine. The effect is that players can try anything and the GM has be rules -trained enough to know modifiers and rolls on the fly. It makes for very cool games, but puts much of the stress on the GM (that would be me in 95% of all games). And with me being mid 30 with family and work and stuff i just dont have the time anymore to train the rules. A decade ago i could write up the whole GURPS Grimoire from mind. Thats about 400 spells. I cant do it today.

Games like D&D4 and WHFRP take much of the responsibility out of the GMs hand and shift it to the players. That makes GMing and preparing games easier. With thati am not preapring a game anymore, i prepare the story.

The game is on the cards and every one can see them, the story is in my head and has to be explored by the players. In my opinion it shifts the focus of game preparation from rules to story.

NezziR said:

Thank you, thats just what i thought when i read Hellebores post.

Felix brought his blade to the guarded position. [Defnsive Stance or Guarded Attack or Parrying Stance, WFRP 2E Core page 127-128]
Gotrek chopped into the chest of his foe. Mail exploded outward from the Goblin’s chest where the huge axe impacted. [strike Mightly Blow and Ulric's Fury]
Aldred charged within the sweep of the Ogre’s huge wrecking ball and stabbed upward through the creature’s stomach. [Combination Dodge and standard attack WFRP 2E Core Page 126 and 129]
Johaan Zauberlich produced a scroll and chanted a spell. A ball of fire appeared in his left hand. [Fires of U’Zhul WFRP 2E Core Page 152]
At the last moment Felix rolled to the side and the club hit rock with a loud crack. [Dodge WFRP 2E Core Page 129]
Felix twisted and lashed out with one boot, sending the Goblin flying. [Combination unarmed attack and Manoeuver WFRP 2E Core Page 127 and 131]
…He dived forward impaling the Goblin before it could rise. [Chage Attack WFRP 2E Page 127]

See I can do it as well. In fact i can do this for many many many different systems without resorting to action cards, recharges and cool naming devices.

So, v2 had some of the same stuff, but printed in a book instead of on a card - not sure of the point you're trying to make. In fact, it seems like you're providing a further precedent for there being special moves in WH, which I'm assuming you're against based on the tone of your last sentence.

I think the cool downs make sense. Let's say you have two actions, Sword Attack (Basic), and Extra Stabby Attack (Special w/ cooldown). To use ESA, the swordsman needs some time to set up his opponent, wait for the right opportunity, and then go for it. That takes time.

One thing I really like about the idea of special actions in general, is that it creates some parity between melee and casters. In many games, casters have WAY more interesting things to, in combat and out. With special actions, the melee people have something more to think about during combat than Swift Attack over and over.

I think it's a valid concern that the new system is just trading a three move rotation for the same attack every turn, but I'm willing to see how it actually works in practice.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Yes, that was never questioned. What is your point?

Maybe that cards are not needed? True. But what is easier at the table? Look through a book(charts or look at the cards right before you? It is both viable IMO.

Maybe recharge? Also true. Recharge is a balance system, that you either like, dont like or really dont care about.

Maybe cool naming? Maybe true, but i would rather name my magic sword "Flameeater" then "Sword +1 (Flaming)", or my Mage "Evendar the Burning" then "Bernd", or my Spell "Soulburn" then "Kill Stuff". RPGs are all about coolness, be it flashy or gritty.

NezziR said:

* Felix brought his blade to the guarded position. [Guarded Position]
* Gotrek chopped into the chest of his foe. Mail exploded outward from the Goblin’s chest where the huge axe impacted. [Thunderous Blow]
* Aldred charged within the sweep of the Ogre’s huge wrecking ball and stabbed upward through the creature’s stomach. [Nimble Strike]
* Johaan Zauberlich produced a scroll and chanted a spell. A ball of fire appeared in his left hand. [Great Fires of U’Zhul (fireball)]
* At the last moment Felix rolled to the side and the club hit rock with a loud crack. [Dodge]
* Felix twisted and lashed out with one boot, sending the Goblin flying. [beat Back]
* …He dived forward impaling the Goblin before it could rise. [setup Strike]

And do ANY of those abilities have cool downs or limited use? If not then as I said, I've got no problem with them. Are ANY of them special moves? Are you saying that two swordsman cannot both go ON GUARD with their weapons? REALLY?

If so then you've got to explain to me how Gotrek can only chop goblins in the chest once a day.

All I see are weapons hitting the foe, where are the special powers? Last time I checked hitting someone in the chest with an axe, or dodging an enemy swing or kicking an enemy were NOT special powers that a person could only perform once a day, or once every 10 seconds. They are feats of opportunity.

If you are trying to say something then I'm not sure what it is. If those abilities don't have special cooldowns then they can be used all the time. Which I have said is WHAT I WANT. If they DO have cooldowns then you've just shot your own argument in the foot. Apparently gotrek can only chop goblins in the chest once a day because the game mechanics tell you so.

I really can't see the point of your argument. None of what you said is special, it's all hum drum sword fighting that anyone with a sword and some knowledge can do and do every time they fight.

Hellebore

Hellebore said:

I don't really understand what you're saying. You were the one who started calling them special powerz and cool moves. I don't believe anyone suggested they weren't mundane. These moves are about hum drum fighting that anyone can do. The Actions just represent moves that are more effective that some characters can pull off better than others.

And talking about cooldown, it's not like it takes a day. They're in terms of rounds: an indeterminate amount of time around about a few seconds.

It's like you've read the rules for D&D are assuming that's how WFRP works.

Think of a boxing match. If a hook did more damage than a jab then all other things being equal, no one would ever jab. And if jabs did the same damage as a hook, no one would ever bother to hook. But in actuality, a boxing match is made up of all sorts of moves, lots of little jabs and the occasional haymaker, etc. You may not like the way that WFRP chooses to portray that sort of variation, that's just down to taste, but that doesn't mean it's all objectively wrong headed.

morskittar said:

So if, under all the cards and tokens and stuff, there is a perfectly workable pen & pencil RPG then that a **** clever bit of design. None-the-less the price point rears it ugly head and I don't think anyone would want to pay £80 and only use half the product. Solution: let those that want the thrills have them and later on bring out a version in a more affordable book form (like a vanila DVD) that does not use all the fancy components. It would be a win/win situation a simple repackaging of existing material into a form more palatable to those that enjoy WHRP as a P&P RPG. Don't get me wrong, I'm not scared of change or even kooky dice but the example of combat I've seen so far, with its numerous steps and card/token juggling, has left me cold. I'm not asking for a product just tailored to me, everyone I know within my RPG community has the same concerns and criticisms.

monkeylite said:

Those aren't all the attacks in the game. I said the game used them. I don't recall saying everything in the game was one. The only problem I would have with normal abilities is giving them stupid names to make them SOUND like kewl powerz. That is a very shallow marketing ploy.

As I was only talking about cool powerz and cooldown powers, using mundane abilities within the game as an argument is completely irrelevant. I never had a problem with them, so holding them up as a shield is pointless. My issue is with abilities like troll feller strike et al which are kewl powerz and which do have abstract cooldowns. The title of the thread is pretty self explanatory so I don't know why people seem to be missing the point.

I don't care if the cool down is 5 seconds, 10 seconds or whatever. It is not logical and entirely abstract. As I've shown several times you can still produce the RESULTS of a cooldown mechanic without simply making it an abstract game rule, which not only ties the game back to the story (which is the focus of the game, not the mechanics) it does so in a logical manner.

To reiterate, I don't like the current metadesign whereby there needs to be kewl powerz or cooldowns. I think they are entirely unnecessary and the cooldown mechanic as-is breaks the versimilitude of the gaming experience. In a very similar way to having a ratcatcher lose his dog instantly if he doesn't complete the ratcatcher career.

Hellebore