Sinister said:

You're right, combat-driven scenarios are easy to design (and therefore fast & cheap to develop) so it's in the industry's best interests for gamers to remain content with the "Kill X, find a clue, then Kill Y" formula. And in most cases, gamers are happy to oblige.

Sinister said:

Yet, of all the WFRP 3e adventures I've seen ... barring the demo adventure which had to showcase the combat system ... I've found 3e to concentrate much more on investigation and social interactions, with only a smattering of combat in between and the possibility of a 'end combat' (which sometimes can be missed if the PCs don't do well in the investigation, or can sometimes be avoided by smart PCs). So, combat is only a small part of WFRP 3e. Granted, my sample so far is very small. It fits right in, however, with the stated FFG focus on story and the PC's adventure and keeping the game moving. Combat itself tends to be rather short and brutal. Again, to move the game along. So, FFG is trying to get the players (and GM) to have an interesting and memorable Adventure , rather than a dungeon-crawl or a series of combats. It is made for just such a non-combat conflict focus.

dvang said:

I think you are correct. I think the fact that FFG is spending time on not only social action cards, but tracking tools to run social encounters, means they have given it some thought. I agree this system stands apart when compared to most other RPGs, that are only concerned with bashing. It's very possible the GM kit will spend even more time with the concept of social encounters. This is a great thing, and can only make the game, and us GMs better.

Lexicanum said:

Furthermore, the diplomatic route would also have to be interesting . If it just comes down to rolling a few Diplomacy tests while you roleplay your character, most gamers would probably prefer a combat encounter instead. Social challenges are far more dependent on the GM / writer providing an assortment of moving parts, complications, rewards and interesting NPC dynamics, whereas for combat challenges you can fire-and-forget, for the most part.

Herr Arnulfe said:

There's some truth in this, what I might call excitement. IF you can make the diplomacy as exciting as combat that's your goal. If it's just a dice roll, well the players would probably rather have the excitement of the combat. This is where it takes a clever, and willing, GM to go that extra mile because combat is just so much easier to plan than:

"You approach the elector count 's manor knowing that his armies will descend upon your friends unless you can sway him. You must convince his steward to give you an audience, then you must convince his snivelling little weasel of a brother, who hates you after what you did at the battle of black hills, that your course of action is the best course of action. Then of course the elector count's wife, the lost love of the human coachmen in the party. Can he convince her to put aside the spurnning he gave her all those years ago? What of the elector's count's advisor, wasn't that they guy you saw stealing the von carstien ring from the Strigany last week? Yes it's him, he may be a vampire! That would explain the servant girl wearing a scarf you just saw....."

Or

"Five orcs come out from the clearing, begging for a fight....."

This is the problem with adventures, it takes so much effort to construct such an encounter as the one above, yet if done, it's so much more rewarding than killing 5 orcs.

Sinister said:

FFG tends to make games that are fairly deadly. Now, it's true that they inherited WFRP2 and DH from Black Library, they did continue on in the tradition of making combat so realistic that no player in his right mind will consider combat without looking at the risks.

There are other companies that have games geared heavily on combat, but I haven't seen any coming from FFG. I've never played Anima, but I've dabbled in Grimm, WFRP, DH and Rogue Trader. All these games have stiff penalties when combat is resorted to.

I love the fact that these games encourage alternatives to combat.

Another popular game by a wizarding company put out a ridiculous patch for non-combat situations called the skill challenge. It was obviously an afterthought for them. They tried to patch in their PHB2. Still unsuccessful in my opinion. I even heard that some of their designers are playing WFRP3 to get a handle on how to do a social system correctly.

I think if the system supports an easy to win combat system, what incentive is there for players to attempt other alternatives. Might makes right if you're the strongest opposition on the table. If combat is deadly, you may consider alternatives to risking life and limb.

Sinister said:

Right on, excellent example. As someone else mentioned above, I applaud v3's usage of Social Actions because they go halfway towards providing a gameable framework for non-combat challenges (although some Basic Social Actions would be nice). But ultimately, the scenario must provide engaging "story meat" in order for social encounters to be exciting. Watching the Elector Count's disposition gradually improve along the Progress Track as you play your Social Action cards won't cut it - there would also need to be tangible rewards and complications at various points along the Progress Track that the players can react to in-character.

For a scenario to be truly balanced though, the GM / writer would have to allow for relevant application of other skills like Tradecraft, Knowledge, Survival etc., not just combat and social conflict. It can be difficult to hit all the keys at once, but in many ways, that's what sandbox WFRP demands.

Thanks for your opinions about RPG design and balance, very interesting. Irrelevant to my question, but still interesting

Machpants said:

In my experience, the magic-using careers' special abilities were offset by the amount of time they needed to spend channeling. In other words, they'll spend 2 rounds standing there winding up a spell while the other PCs are doing cool stuff, then the priest/wizard gets his one big shebang, and hopefully the combat isn't over yet when it goes off.

I concur with those who respond with something akin to " what does balance mean?"

I don't believe classes need to be balanced in the strictest sense, rather each class should provide the player with an interesting set of choices that are meaningful to the role they play in the game and the party. More to the point at hand, one shouldn't assume "balanced" applies only to combat effectiveness (or as some have rightly pointed out, the MMO equivalent 'DPS' statistic).

I personally don't find casters to be overpowered in the damage dealing department (though they may become so at later levels - which for me is more than fine). And even should they reach epic levels of death dealing prowess, the party cannot stave off an entire mob of angry peasants who are coming for the wizard with pitch forks and torches. And whose to say a man of the cloth is immune? The effects of a miracle look pretty similar to the effects of magic, and beside, they could be corrupted too... burn em!

What I mean to suggest by all of that, is there are ways of "balancing" the powers of the careers in terms outside of stats, actions and other numerical elements. And that applies to all powers, not just combat related ones, but others that might affect story discovery, and so on.

Well like most RPGs most of the rules are for covering combat situations, so IMO combat power should be balanced between careers. Outside encounter mode the balance is not so much required. Still, from what most are saying, the casters are close enough... which is good enough for me. So I will keep those careers in the deck when the players pick their three.

Thanks.

Machpants said:

Out of curiosity, why do you feel that all of the careers need to be balanced with respect to combat? Nevermind what balance means (damage per turn? opportunities to inflict criticals? Ability to deflect damage?)

Does it make sense that a scribe or peasant be as capable in combat as a dwarf troll slayer (to pick some of the more iconic careers)?

Just what I am used to I guess, I run a combat heavy game and I am not a huge fan of one player doing everything. Not just in combat, but anywhere. Having no PC that is that much better means every player has an almost equal input to the result. Having one hyper PC is a step below Deus Ex Machina, IMO,

Machpants said:

But that is exactly the point. You are expecting the game to be something it isn't. It isn't a combat simulator. It's fine to play a game that is completely focused on combat, but you can't expect the rules to assume that. The rules assume that you are playing the game as a well-rounded role playing game.

Why would you expect a Rat Catcher and a Mercenary to have balanced combat skills?

If you want to play a war game using these rules, then the non-military careers. But it doesn't seem fair to me to complain about balance in a game in which the careers are so incredibly varied, specifically to allow a broader range of role playing possibilities.

Machpants said:

I think the abstract notion of 'balance' is more important if your game skews toward one particular style. If you have a variety of social, investigation, and combat encounters, it's easy enough for every player to shine, even if some players are drastically better at one kind of action than another. Of course, I also just write scenarios, NPCs, and opportunities for individual characters if I feel they haven't had the spotlight on them in awhile. If I know that there's a player who's likely to feel less involved in a combat-heavy scenario, I make sure to put in some things s/he can do wellobservation checks, negotiations with key NPCs, or straight RP opportunities. That's part of my job as GM (at least as I see it.) I make sure the work is divided up amongst the players.

Llanwyre said:

I think Machpants does have a point, and it's one which underlies the biggest challenge that WFRP v3 faces walking the line between boardgame and RPG. Much of the players' enjoyment in v3 comes from playing Action Cards (or "kewl powerz", as it were). For combat situations, it's easy to design Action Cards because combat is by its very nature like a boardgame. However, once you begin making Action Cards for non-combat situations, you run the risk of limiting RP because symbol-coded cards can be fairly restrictive, and many non-combat RPG activities are distinctly not like a boardgame. So for players who enjoy v3 primarily for the Action Cards, combat is likely to be their main focus.

I agree that a Scribe really shouldn't have the combat prowess of a Trollslayer or a Soldier.

However, the fact is that in v3 you *can* make a Scribe, for example, into a decent fighter. There are no restrictions (for the most part) on Action cards. Talents are restricted by slots, but there are some combat-useful reputation and focus talents. You might not get a "free" stat advance to start in St or To or Ag, but you can certainly purchase up to a 4 in those without too much difficulty. You can buy a non-career advance to train Weaponskill. Sure, it will cost a bit more, but not unduly so since it is a basic skill. Voila, a Scribe with St 4, To 4, trained in weaponskill and Double Strike (or Trollfeller Strike, or both, etc). It's doable for only a bit more experience (mainly b/c of training weaponskill), for any career.

dvang said:

True... But the Scribe should be just as able to affect the flow of a story (albeit in different ways) than a Trollslayer.

A player who chooses the Trollslayer career obviously gets the spotlight whenever the scene requires elements like combat or when the story can benefit from a bit of GRIM and DESTINY roleplaying.

The Scribe should get the spotlight too when their skills (whatever they may be) can come in handy.

Necrozius said:

Perhaps what's needed are some research, lore and forgery-related Action Cards to make the Scribe's unique skills a bit more "juicy".

Herr Arnulfe said:

True, but in my opinion, a GM should make sure to always include story hooks that give the chance for each party member to take the spotlight, despite their stats and action cards.

EDIT: I don't mean ALL at once. That's some serious Captain Planet sh** goin' on there...

Necrozius said:

Yes, I'm just thinking that Scribe-type skills are more difficult for new GMs to invent interesting challenges for. Oftentimes the Scribe challenge is reduced to: "roll vs. Read/Write to understand this manuscript". Compared to combat, this often doesn't seem very interesting. If the rulebook doesn't provide guidance for GMs to design better academic-type "fantasy CoC" challenges, then at least having a few Action Cards might be a start.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Yeah, I agree, actually.

Perhaps the actions don't have to necessarily be focused on writing abilities or forgery, but ones which take advantage of the unremarkable nature of these archetypes.

Like a "Face in the Crowd" action, which allows PCs with the relevant Traits on their career cards (academic, menial etc...) to benefit from their mundane appearance to better use stealth or blather under certain circumstances.

Necrozius said:

I guess it depends on whether you feel that academic pursuits are fundamentally boring and ungameable in RPGs. I don't believe they are, having enjoyed several CoC adventures involving Library Use etc., but CoC adventures do take a lot of work to write.

Herr Arnulfe said:

*I* don't believe that they are either.

But typically, in sword and sorcery epics, fighters, mages and thieves tend to take the spotlight.

Nerds usually don't.