Let's get this party started..

Top 5 reasons why WFRP (any edition) is better than D&D:

1. Fewer Magical Weapons and Abilities. (Take a check to run up raindrops, anyone? )

2. Established, gritty, believable world. This is more in reference to Forgotten Realms than anything, but the happiness of the setting just puts me off.

3. Wide variety of careers, and the ability to effectively multiclass.

4. No resurrection. "Uh oh, Regram the Fighter just died again. Cleric, let's get that revolving door to death spinning."

5. Warhammer Orcs > D&D Orcs. Same goes for Chaos, Skaven, Beastmen, Ogres.... just about any comparison you care to make. Actual enemies instead of MMORPG enemies, standing around waiting for you to kill them for Experience Points.

1. It is Warhammer

2. It is more open ended.

3. I like the cards

4. Dice are cool

5. more 'even' i guess would be the word

Just my 2 cents

Here are my reasons but in no specific order:

• None of the playable races are monsters that feel out of place (Player's Handbook 3 adds minotaur to the list of playable races). If you play a monster in WFRP 2nd edition they are cool quirky and feel like they fit in the setting (Skaven from Children of the Horned Rat, chaos mutants from Tome of Corruption).

• In D&D hit points can be scaled so high it feels unrealistic (you can have 100+ HP at higher levels) and a mid-end D&D character can survive things that would mortally wound or kill almost anyone (A fireball hit to the face, a dozen sword blows etc.). While wounds are scaled in a realistic fashion and it is impossible to amass more 20 or so. Even a high end WFRP can still be killed easily by things that would barely scratch a D&D character.

• In D&D wizards are people that read books and are able to blast people with 3 or 4 fireballs and then they go home because they are out of spells. If the wizard is in 4th edition D&D they are nothing more then combat spell-casters who mainly have spells that are useful in battle and no where else (Even a bright wizard has more utility spells then these guys). While WFRP wizards are feared and persecuted and sometimes even hunted down. If a WFRP wizard messes up his spells then bad stuff is going to happen.

• D&D clerics have share most of the same types of spells if the god they worship similar (D&D 3.5) or they have the same list of spells regardless of whether they are worshiping the godess of death or the god of the sun. WFRP priests have completely different spells for each god. In WFRP there is tension between the different cults (Sigmar and Ulric) and even some of the most faithful priests can be tempted by the dark gods...

• In D&D the main reason the PCs fight evil if for loot and XP (not always the case and I don't have too much against an old fashion dungeon crawl if it is done right). In WFRP the PCs fight to survive but some fight out of loyalty to a cause (Kill Orcs for Sigmar!) or for a interesting realistic goal (love, revenge, desire, political power etc.). I know not all WFRP groups play that way but the main difference being that WFRP characters do not get 100 XP and a pile of gold for killing a goblin in the woods.

I have no experience with D&D 4th edition, as that game didn't appeal to me at all, so all of this is in comparison to 3.5:

1) D&D, at high levels, isn't a medieval fantasy game. It's a superhero game which resembles modern SWAT tactics more than anything remotely resembling fantasy. High level characters simply need to scry the big bad guy they're after, teleport to him, and start hurling spells until it's dead. A reasonably equipped high level character can destroy an average army of a few thousand with minimal effort, especially if it's a magic/divine class. Expecting high level characters to undergo any sort of struggling journey to achieve an objective is an excercise in futility. I strongly disagree with the lack of utility spells - high level caster characters are esentially deities with what they can pull off with some creativity. I don't even see the point of having a non caster character at high level. A single summoned creature from a caster is far more effective than a level 20 fighter/barbarian/paladin/ranger. Not to mention a caster at this point could destroy one of those classes even in melee combat - yes, even a wizard.

2) D&D is a miniatures game more than a roleplaying game. Even with a DM focused on exploring other areas of gameplay, the level of overwhelming detail given to combat quickly reduces the game into a tactical strategy game as soon as swords are drawn. I prefer a simpler, more narrative system, where the focus is on the ongoing story rather than the banal turn-by-turn breakdown of a fight. I've seen entire sessions of anything D20 reduced to nothing but combat, regardless of the intents of the DM.

3) The D20. There is no more random system than this, especially for skill checks (anything non combat). Especially at lower levels, the margin of luck that the D20 introduces makes character abilities irrelevant. At higher levels, see point 1.

4) Given that characters skyrocket in progress from inept bumbling fools who struggle to take down a few orcs to demi-gods who can raze cities, I can't really come up with a setting that makes sense. It's entirely divorced from reality. Some of the D&D settings, by themselves, aren't bad at all. I can't fault that. They just can't exist as written within the confines of the system without some major suspension of disbelief. What's stopping dragons and other high level mosters from just decimating the majority of civilization? By the time high level heroes caught news of what was happening, half of a country could be wiped out in a matter of hours. And once defeated, the monsters could just ressurect each other to wipe out the other half later. Why are farmers needed when a single caster can forever solve the problem of famine by creating a permanent spell that summons cattle in a slaughterhouse? Why wouldn't this caster do the same in a desert, opening up a gate to a plane of water and turning the once barren land green in months? The very existence of high level magic should have turned the world into something more akin to a high futuristic society. Unless the monsters have destroyed everything.

5) Players are encouraged, by the nature of the system, to make stab blocs rather than characters. If I want to play a somewhat social barbarian, for example, I'm left with a few choices. I can gimp my character to do this through multi-classing, or I can just stay the course and have a set of stats optimized for combat but having little resembelance to how I envision the character. It's a very crunchy but inflexible system where players are encouraged to pigeon hole their statistics with little regard for non mechanical considerations. Again, I can roleplay whatever I want, but the mechanics are again divorced from the reality of the setting.

It's hasn't got a DM's guide (I am referring to the 3.5 edition which I own) that is absolutely stuffed full of random dungeon architecture and treasure tables that no sane gamesmaster will ever use. Let's face it; a method of creating a monster-filled and trap-strewn underground labyrinth that is governed by no sense of logic whatsoever is just lame. Does anyone ever use this technique any more? Here's what I do when I want to plan out a cave system where goblins (or whatever) live: I take a pen, and however many sheets of A4 paper I think I'm going to need, and then I draw it out. Usually takes about an hour or so depending on how big and intricate a cave system it's going to be and how much detail I'm going to add to my little sketch (I might put in some barrels or a broken cart and dead horse or something). Then I choose where the goblins (or whatever) are going to be, how many of them there may be and where they might have put their little goblin traps. It's really that easy and makes a large section of the DM's guide completely redundant.

Having said that, I like DnD because... well it's DnD isn't it. Generic fantasy fun where hobbits and half-orcs can hang out down the pub together and killing 1,000 kobolds will just about get you to level 2.

Depends on the Edition of D&D for the reasons...

4e D&D is now a pen and paper MMO, so WFRP wins hands down (in any edition.)

3e D&D was broken at the lower and upper tiers, so WFRP wins hands down (in any edition.)

Wait, I guess it didn't matter.

I have not run the 3rd yet, but:

• Warhammer Characters actually get to use their abilities numbers. They are not just there for the bonuses.

• Warhammer does not rely solely on levels. The adventures can be easily modified and the writers do not pigeon hole the characters to their levels (starting off in the dungeons, etc.)

• has actually come a long way since it was first created. Despite it's flaws, 2ed is still a better game than D&D (although, I do like D&D's skill challanges, but that could be easily adapted to any game).

• has more freebies and does not require it's players to buy into a subscription to get good support and free adventures, etc.

• gives the characters story reasons for their advancement.

Don't get me wrong, the new D&D is a pretty good game, but it still needed a lot done to it (I am being kind). I thought Dragon Age was good, but that world seems suspiciously like Warhammer

RE Vlad:

I used the treasure tables quite a bit :shobon: Mostly because I couldn't be bothered to continually juggle with what was appropriate for the party level while pouring over hundreds of pages of magic items and gear. It was almost essential to use them to maintain balance by giving a wide range of items for all classes while ensuring that loot isn't overly useless or specifically geared to the party (making them stronger than they should be). They actually balanced level appropriate monsters with the average results of the loot tables in mind. But outside of that table, yeah, I didn't use any of those worthless random dungeon charts.

But that does bring up another negative: the system was too gear dependent and magic items not only too common, but game balance depended on it; magic items appropriate to the level were a huge contributor to the effectiveness of a characcter, almost equal to level, feats and so on. It's much easier in WHFRP to just use common sense rather than midlessly roll loot for every encounter. I just took the effort to make a master chart of loot in a dungeon and scatter stuff where it's appropriate or believable (a few scrolls in a goblin den might be found on a dead adventurer rather than in the pocket of an illiterate bubgear). I prefer a system where artifacts are important and treasured rather than routine and necessary tools of the trade for purposes of a coherent story. But again, D&D is more of a tactical miniatures system.

Bobby Fett said:

After our final game of 4th Ed, I had made the comment that if we want to continue with D&D and all of this freak'n combat and minatures crap, we are going to switch to Decent because that would do a better job!

Bobby Fett said:

I have never thought random tables were a bad thing. In fact that was one of the things that got me into WFRP. I liked the career tables and random roll characteristics of 2nd edition. When 3rd edition came out I liked how they preserved some of the randomness in cards and new dice system. As for loot tables I could do without them as loot isn't too much of an issue in my WFRP campaigns. I guess as long as a loot table makes even a little bit of sense I wouldn't mind it.

To be perfectly honest, I get a bit tired of words like "gritty" and "dark" being tossed around all too much. I too love the "dark", oppressive setting of Warhammer (though not when it gets too cynical or nihilistic, which I don't like at all. Personal preferences, of course). But anyway, I enjoy the grim atmosphere and yet there is something that irks me when people say one thing is better than another because it is darker or grittier. Or especially "edgier". I really hate that word, "edgy". I guess it feels too "corporate executive trying to figure out what appeals to kids these days" to me. And I'm perfectly fine with happy superheroic high fantasy settings as well as dark and moody stuff. I'm rambling. But my point is: I like D&D, I like Warhammer and I don't really prefer either. It just depends on what mood I'm in.

But more to the point: as Warhammer 3's *improvements* over D&D (by which I mean things that I think are *better*, not just "different and equally fun"), I'd name the following:

=> dice system (math-free, flexible, versatile and nearly always limited to one roll)

=> less rules-lawyering possible because the rules are flexible by design

=> party mechanics

=> stance system

=> initiative system

I like the progress tracker at times, dislike it at others. I like the lack of minis but prefer to play with them at others. I can see the value of the Acts & Episodes structure but sometimes it annoys me as well. There are places where I prefer D&D and places where I prefer WFRP. So that's my two cents:)

In WFRP (any edition), FIGHTERS AREN'T USELESS IN HIGHER LEVELS (compared to spellcasters).

In D&D, fighters can be kinda useful if you polymorph them. Rangers especially, because then you can polymorph both them and their pet. A barbarian worked well as a dinosaur. Still less effective than a wizard, druid or cleric in melee (yet alone what they can summon), but it's a start!

Honestly, I really don't mind the settings for D&D, and have nothing to complain about on that end. I thought Forgotten Realms was well done, as was Dark Sun, Planescape and Eberron. It's not the settings I dislike. It's the system, and how it often fails to incorporate with those settings.

I hear what you're saying, but by the time the Fighter is getting over how awesome it is to have been polymorphed into Godzilla or the giant Stay Puft Marshmallow man, the wizard has already mass mind controlled the army of Beholders and gotten them to all kill themselves by jumping into a volcano (which the wizard summoned last turn).

ARGH.

What a waste of ridiculous eyeball monsters! Foolish wizard should find a way to permanently control them, and jam those suckers in a portable hole for whenever he needs a personal army of laser eyeball masses.

But the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man is pretty cool I guess vOv

*Edit: for clarification, this banter is not off topic. It's a very real simulation of standard D&D discourse in action, and a great example of why the system is breathtakingly terrible for those who doubt!

Call the fire department because this thread is overflowing with straw men and they are all ablaze!

jdigaetano said:

What is interesting is watching the same people who bristle when they hear "Warhammer 3ed is a board game" comment jump on the "D&D 4ed is a MMORPG" meme, especially since both editions moved their properties in very similar directions.

To me it's like arguing that pizza is better than ice cream. Does liking one mean you have to hate another? Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, are appropriate at different times, and both are enjoyable.

Doc, the Weasel said:

I don't think many people say they -hate- D&D. I like it, I just prefer Warhammer, for many of the reasons stated.

I find Warhammer to be a bit more serious, and more believable, as well as being a bit less prone to the min/max game.

D&D is a lot less work to DM though, which I enjoy.

jdigaetano said:

Arguing about roleplaying games is serious business, especially when the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man enters the picture

Given the nature of RPGs, it's not so much a formal debate as it is opinions shaped by personal experience and taste. Much like how someone will prefer one brand of soda over another on entirely subjective criteria. My own experiences with D20 have turned me off the system, just as I've been turned off GURPS and for many of the same reasons (although the dislike was far more extreme for GURPS).

I've never really seen how D&D 4th ed is like an MMO to be honest, so I really don't get that catchphrase. There isn't really any grinding or raiding involved in it from what I've experienced, and it didn't really give me the same vibe at all. MMOs usually feature linear quests which can be repeated, etc., which isn't exactly part of the whole pen and paper experience. I've never gone out of my way to kill a boar to finish up a level in D&D, although I'm sure somebody somewhere has. I guess you could loosely draw the same comparison with any RPG with classes, class dependent abilities, and XP vOv

Same goes with the min maxing complaint. A player can min/max almost any system they want, including Warhammer. From a mechanics point of view, some classes in Warhammer are generally seen as a more powerful choice than others, same as in D&D. The difference I suppose is that the power level plateaus at a much more down to earth level than in D&D, and combat remains a riskier affair with a lack of resurrection etc. But that's all relative to the game.

FYI: I was talking about pre-4th edition D&D. I think the latest version is fantastic. Pathfinder is just a tweaked copy of 3rd edition.

...a statement which will open a whole OTHER can of worms here.

Necrozius said:

Now you've done it!

I found the same thing. 4th Ed seemed much more reasonable imo, and if given a choice between which to DM for, I would choose the latest ed. I'd still rather use a more narrative, less crunchy system like Warhammer though as a matter of preference.

Unfortunately I can't comment on which of the two is better because my only Roleplay Experience is D&D 4th edition so far and I have been enjoying it immensely.

Why I am so intrigued by WFRP though is the setting, the down to earth grittiness it has, and I'm not a big fan of the divinity levels you can reach in D&D.
Also, WFRP appears to be more focused on intrigue instead of combat.

Last few sessions of D&D has been all combat and I think this because the game is more like a tactical miniature game included with the Roleplay stuff. All the combat just made me miss the venturing into town harassing NPCs with questions part.

I have to say that even though I like WFRP better than D&D, the D&D 4ed rules are good enough for me to stop complaining about it if I ever have to play in someone's D&D game in the future (which might happen, but I doubt it).

If that is D&D discourse, you've got a pretty terrible group if you ask me. D&D can be just as great as Warhammer with the right people to play with, in my opinion?