dvang said:

I think this way gives the player a lot more options, as well. Military Sergeant doesn't really say anything about the character. Maybe he brutalizes his men to get things done (Thug), or maybe he spends his time in study pouring over texts on military tactics and strategies (Scholar). Maybe he deals in logistics, making sure that each unit is properly supplied (Bailiff). Perhaps he uses his position to illegally sell weapons and armor to the highest bidder (Smuggler).

Each of those adds much more flavor to both the character and the campaign than just plain Military Sergeant.

And there is always the option to ignore the forced career change rule when you finish all 10 advances.

In my game, you can "move into" the same career once again. Use a new character sheet, just as if you did change careers, and go for another 10 EPs.

So a Mercenary Sergeant would be a rank 2 mercenary (for example), and then the choices you make of skills, talents and actions will tell what kind of sergeant you are.

This said, I will welcome a career expansion for sure ! Give us 40 more please...

I don't think pathfinders half bad, wisards of the coast abandonded 3.5, paizo picked it up and balanced it and fixed what fans were complaining about.

And now It's selling really well just to laugh at wizards of the coast, I'm all for anything that brings about there comeupance.

Karma-riffic!

Doc, the Weasel said:

This is a fantastic example, and I think really illustrates the strengths of the career system. It also forces a player to think more about his character, what they are doing both in their adventuring time and their downtime, and how they approach obstacles and other people. It's far, far more interesting than "I want to do XYZ really well, so I'm just going to take the same career over again and take the same advancements over again."

Hierarchical progression doesn't even need to be implied. An advanced Soldier can still be one of the rank and file. Maybe he finds out that military life is mostly digging ditches and carrying things from point A to point B (Commoner). Or he draws sentry duty a lot, and is very devoted to performing that duty to the best of his abilities (Watchman). Perhaps his unit commander is corrupt enough to hire state troops out to the highest bidder, and he finds himself getting tapped as one of the "outsourced" troops (Mercenary or Thug). He could land himself a cushy position with his commanders as a runner (Messenger)... or a cushy position in the Quartermaster's office that provides all sorts of opportunities for graft (Burgher, Thief, or both). You could even run a campaign in such a state unit where everyone starts as a Soldier but branches into the above examples of secondary roles - that would make a formidable group of adventurers.

The more players and GMs approach the career cards as roles or general areas of practice and interest, instead of ironclad careers that can only be interpreted by the name at the top of the card, the more the career system of advancement, and the current "lack of progression" becomes a strength of the game rather than a weakness. Yes, there are some cards that can really only define a rather narrow roles, particularly the spellcasting classes. That's all right, too, and yes it will be nice when there are more of them in the game to choose from. In the meantime there are campaigns' worth of advancement already at our fingertips.

Jericho said:

Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree with Dvang's point. The "proxy" career works great, it really does and we find for most things there is ample room for advancement. Some of my players don't like it and need a "nitch" straight out of the box and sometimes can't rap their heads around the options. So we, like Jericho points out, do repeat careers. But when we do it, we dig up a career talent card that seems appropriate to the change in class. We then apply this to the repeated career. It is as easy as pie and the only thing that's different is the back picture. Oh well. I know it may overlap with another career sometime, like Commoner repeated twice, but who cares. It's just the same as having two commoners in the party. They are careers, with a special career talent card. Anything more rigid is not needed in the system and I personally hate strict vertical advancement in the likes of DND and Dark Heresy. It's simply too rigid and has a hard time at all portraying well characters who want to switch their mode of operation or have a life changing event. This way, I can tailor make careers and I can tailor make abilities. No one in my group every really generates the card type itself. We always just find a card that's close enough to who they are and if we need to change the talent card, so be it. Done and done. It works great, plays great, and there's no problem with it for such a simple modification. I guess that's my two cents in this whole argument.

dvang said:

I disagree here.

While lateral advancements can certainly keep some players entertained indefinitely, there are an appreciable number that prefer vertical advancement.

WFRP3 should eventually support both options.

My group only play about once a month, but at this point, we're starting to push the limits of those that prefer the latter option, and I think that FFG should support that style of play. If they don't, they alienate a portion of their players.

Emirikol said:

*if you miss a gritty wfrp game, then play V1 or V2 of the RPG

*also the web tools they are more suited to playing a RPG, never designed for weird dice, cards and things people normally have to deal with in a board games

VonMoose, each time you try to insinuate that WHFRP is a boardgame you make yourself look that little bit more ignorant.

Fabs said:

Oh, it looks more to me that someone is bitter because 2nd ed. got canned.

I just finished reading the rulebook and... Crap!

My fantasy battles will have to battle for my prime time with this game.

Excellent work FFG!