This.

The dice design open up possibilities you can't compensate for with a straight numerical penalty/bonus sort of system. And the fact that it gets the players involved in telling their stories that much deeper is awesome. I'll bring up the one where we had the 'aha' moment for the first time. When the characters reached the coach and the courier in A Shilling Short the Elf searched the inside of the coach. He directed a die to stance and we agreed that he could search carefully (1 green) which would take him more time but make success more likely, or he could tear apart the coach (1 red) trying to find the package quickly but leave everything in disarray and potentially strain himself (a fatigue die). With the storm pounding down on the party and the very real threat of beastmen returning soon over their heads the Envoy chose to ransack the coach and found it, straining himself in the process.

It was a simple thing and something we hadn't really given much thought to, but the immersion I and the player felt at the system's prospects this suggested was something I've missed in an RPG for literally years.

Herr Arnulfe said:

I don't think it's a constant requirement, but it is a stated design goal of WFRP 3e to be dynamic and malleable to the GM's desires. So, ignoring that can be detrimental.

It's like a truck, it's designed to haul cargo. So during its design certain concessions were made to allow for this cargo hauling capacity. So it might not have as much leg room, or the engine might consume too much gasoline, or it might not accelerate as fast from 0 to 60, all of which can be drawbacks if you don't value the cargo hauling capacity it has.

So bringing it back to RPGs: WFRP 3e allows the GM to be dynamic and to change things on the fly. Go from a static 1 <P> difficulty to opposed checks, add modifiers to rolls at his discretion or change NPC's from henchmen to full blown NPCs. In the end, the drawbacks the system has are there to accommodate its dynamic nature. So if you're not going to take advantage of the dynamic nature of the game you're going to be dealing with lots of drawbacks that don't really give you anything.

So why buy a truck if you'll never need to haul much of anything? You might be happier with a model that fits your needs.

I guess that's mostly what one should take away. That things are the way they are for a reason, and that reason fits a certain playstyle, and if you don't fit that certain playstyle you might want to analyze if what's left still proves to be a net positive in terms of your gaming experience.

Kryyst said:

My thoughts exactly. Even though I had to increase the potency to make the game have the success rate I felt reasonable, the dice themselves are absolutely brilliant. They add so much to the game and you are absolutely right that adding those two black dice is much nice than giving the players a 10% penalty. It also feels better because you physically add the misfortune or challenge to their dice pool.

I've never understood the fetish for encounter balance in any system. If the PCs are stupid enough to take on a dragon while just starting out their adventuring career, that's their fault! They could fight, negotiate, run, charm, plead, deftly escape, summon aid, anything. The choice is up to them.

Likewise, if they are experienced and encounter a few goblins, and the goblins lose a few and make to run, but the PCs pursue them to slaughter every last man, woman, and child in bloodthirsty hyper-rage, maybe there should be consequences to that. Maybe party tension increases. Maybe local priests who witnessed the carnage refuse to heal the PCs.

There should always be repercussions of any decisions made, whatever the action is that might prompt the decision.

Lexicanum said:

Sorry, my comment was perhaps too vague. I wasn't referring to overall flexibility, but rather the weakness of Trolls specifically. If it's just one or two monsters that are too weak RAW, no problem. If the majority of opponents needed to be tweaked upwards to make the game sufficiently challenging, then I'd find it more tedious. But really, I don't even know for sure that Trolls are too weak - I'm just going based on other people's reports. My sense from playing v3 was that PCs do have a significant advantage because of the various special NPC rules, but it was something that was hard to quantify or even put a finger on.

From the stats given so far for creatures, it seems the design principle has been one of multiple creatures. Even big bad guys are expected to be surrounded with henchmen. I don't expect much success with one boss vs many scenarios.

The group boss encounter (many PCs versus one NPC) will most likely fail due to the high success rate of players, the high and static lethality of weapons and the overall low wound count of NPCs. Also the disparity of actions, actions are quite powerful in WFRP 3e and each players increases the odds against the NPC significantly, and there's nothing in the single NPC arsenal to compensate for this, aside from petryfing the PCs.

In MMO's, where boss encounters are the bread and butter of raids, enemy creatures meant to be defeated in groups can have anywhere from 5 to 10 times as many wounds as a player. (Uber boss mobs have hundreds or thousands of more wounds, but that's another ball game). There's not even a single instance of one creature that has over 30 wounds.

The Giant has only 22 wounds. That's barely twice what a weak human would have (9 base + 2 toughness).

The minion rules are there I believe for just this reason, to facilitate multiple mob encounters, as they seem to be what's required to scale up the challenge for player groups.

Unless you create some munchkin DrizzT-style ranger with Rapid Shot, Immobilising Shot and some painful talents I don't see single a NPC surviving very long in combat against competent, min/maxed PC's. And mind you min/maxing doesn't have to be some asinine, borderline rule-breaking concept, just someone who picked cards for their effectiveness in combat.

Lexicanum said:

I wouldn't say that giving Giants 5 to 10 times more Wounds than a player was MMO-like. In fact, I'd say it was realistic considering relative body mass. Now, if a human NPC champion had 5-10 times as many Wounds, then it would start smelling more like D&D than WFRP. But it sounds like it might just be the large creatures that were nerfed in v3.

Even if it is MMO like...MMO's are 'slightly' more popular than tabletop RPG's. Perhaps tabletop companies have something to learn from MMO's in their presentation.

This is just theory though..as I'm not an MMO player (no, not even WAR)

jh

Herr Arnulfe said:

I've no bias against MMO's really. Most are based on RPG-like mechanics and hence are useful for comparing certain types of play/encounters, in this case the boss encounter type setup.

I mean, at least they've managed to get the mathematics of it right. With X dmg / round coming in and figuring out that NPC's need to have a certain range of damage mitigation available to them in order to survive the PC onslaught and live long enough for the player to feel challenged, but not long enough for it to become tedious.

I've been wanting to write a combat simulator for WFRP, but haven't had the time. I'd like to be able to go further than just saying I think some mobs have been nerfed. And while volumetrically speaking the Giant has justification for having many times more wounds, it's important to GM's to know what variables to tweak to get the desired results. I believe wounds would be the most important one, but I'd like to back that up with at least some simulation data.

Another option might be to give boss style NPC's more actions per turn, or several initiative rolls. I think that might also balance them out against a team of players.

Can I ask a really stupid question?

If a monster is too weak to challenge a party, why don't you just up a few stats, maybe wounds, or toughness, or initiative? Is it that it would break the rules part of the game in some way, or is it a case of 'I shouldnt have to do that - it means the game is unbalanced'? Sure you can't and shouldnt up certain stats, a giant slug for example should not have his initiative raised, but it would work elsewhere.

I ask because, [a] I've been modifying my monsters majorly over the years, I see this as evidence of a good design/play philosophy, and If you expect 20 trolls lined up to have the exact same strengths, well that's just a matter of perspective and opinion. A very wrong outlook in my opinion, and very unrealistic.

Stuff it; just slap an extra 20 wounds on the troll and explain to the party that 'perhaps the world you live in isn't all separated into neat litle boxes for your convenience - as you assumed. Some times you just don't know, some times you get a wrong. That's life and it's unpredictable'.

Why I'd be totally happy if FFG said something like 'Trolls are tough and ferocious creatures in combat with terrific strength - you have the guidelines, run with it'.

Time to cowboy up pardners'!

EDIT: It's actually a gripe of mine that monsters in certain games are all levelled into nice little packages with 'Come whack me I'm only 2nd level' on their backs. Imagine the excitement and shake up if a goblin actually gave a (to use an example) 5th level Warrior a run for his money. Keeps them on their toes, makes them respect the world too. Keeps them guessing, keeps them respectful of the world's minions. 'Oh look another Goblin'. Hate that mid set.

I'm completely in agreement with what you've said Rat Catcher. I love your example of the goblin breaking from the mold and taking the players for a wild ride.

I think my primary interest in this discussion has strayed away form the original question and more into the territory of "Given the WFRP 3e rule system, what are the effects of tweaking certain NPC characteristics". As a GM I'm interested in what the effects of my changes will be in actual play.

So don't mind me, I'm mostly thinking out loud, wondering what changes would be most effective and how I could go about creating certain types of encounters.

Rat Catcher said:

The way I've read the rules and monster section is precisely this way - they've presented an average Troll and you are encouraged to make it stronger or weaker (give it weapons, armor, magical dodads, etc.) as dictated by the party setup.

I love this approach - everything can be tweaked and as a GM you are expected to do so as no 2 groups are alike.

As I mentioned earlier, it says right in the rules (page???) that you can give monsters equipment: just replace the second number next to a stat with the appropriate ones from whatever armor and weapons you give it.

So that Troll who went down like a b*tch might not be so much of a push over with the equivalent of plate armor and a great axe in each hand (hey, they're big, why not?).

Necrozius said:

That would be the LotR fix, not the Warhammer fix.

I don't think I've ever seen an armoured Warhammer Troll outside of Blood Bowl.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Trolls could wear armor, but they're not great crafters themselves. But a troll running with goblins or orcs could have been trained to use both armor and weapons. Giants should be able to use both armor and weapons. A beastman could very well use full plate and a two handed axe for an added challenge. The same with orcs. There is so much room for setting up encounters based on the bestiary, but I am very much opposed to the thought of looking at the bestiary from a D&Dish perspective where a goblin is simply just a goblin.

Again see, ok fair enough, the 'Trolls R' Us' outfitters are scarce to be sure, but for me I'd just 'up' the TOU, or whatever.

And grin doing so

By armor I meant literally strapping stuff to his body, like the dead bodies of fallen knights, orcs & goblins that the Troll didn't fell like eating at the time. Or maybe he just wants to age and tenderize them a bit before consumption.

Plus I distinctly remember images of Troll miniatures wielding giant clubs and stones. So why not?

EDIT: or perhaps a particularly intelligent and malevolent Orc Boss has enslaved a bunch of Trolls into his goon army, and suited them up. That would be kind of cool. Ha ha, there's probably even a goblin "driver" sitting on top of the Trolls, pulling strings to "steer" him (this strings are attached to hooks in the Troll's flesh).

Bad ass.

Necrozius said:

That is the reason this bestiary is better than some 400 pages tome. If makes GMs think creatively

Armoured Trolls just don't fit the Warhammer Troll imagery at all. I wouldn't be a canon nazi about it, but it wouldn't be the first fix I'd use either.

I don't see how it is an immersion breaking concept. It's not like I'm suggesting giving them light sabers or anything.

It's not immersion-breaking, it just doesn't seem very Warhammery.

I think it is very obvious that a GM can change the monsters in the Bestiary to suit their need, but the monsters listed in Bestiary as supposed to be a baseline for all monsters that the PCs are to face. The original point was that a strong party could kill a troll (as listed) in a very short time and that the average troll should be more of a challenge to a PC group. Now I'm not sure if that is even true as I've not tested it, but it was the original point.

Shadowspawn said:

I totally agree that a 'strong' party could kill a troll in a vry short time. I see no problems with this. The average troll will be more of a challenge. There's no issues here either.

The issue I think, is that FFG's idea of 'more of a challenge', isn't the same as another player's idea of 'more of a challenge'.

If I see my players making easy work over a particular combatant, I see that as my problem - not a problem of the game per se. Granted there could be a better way of determining what is a real threat and what isn't, but I personally don't see this as anything major. I'd probably learn my expereince.

And anyway, if I noticed they were having an easy time of it during the combat, I could always make an adjust mid flow.

Gallows said:

Very glass is half-full of you Gallows.

I see it as a poor quality piece of work that requires me to shore up the games shortcomings.

As you can see, I'm not glass is half-full.

LeBlanc13 said:

Hehe. Perhaps it's just because I have never found big bestiaries of much use because I always tailor NPCs to the specific situation and party. That means I can use a tiny goblin who is as tough as an iron breaker if I want and as nimble as an elf. There is no way a bestiary can cover any NPCs I want to use. Instead I want it to be a guideline for creating my own. Just offer the very basic description and examples. For me the cup is filled exactly as much as I want it, because I want sugar, cream and plenty whisky in there as well (seriously though I'd never defile my whisky in that way). You just expect different things from the bestiary. FFG made a bestiary I like. If they made one you like, then I wouldn't find it of much use anyway. It's not because the bestiary is lacking. It's a design choice and one I support.