Me and my group like pathfinder. We don't like 4th ed DnD at all. But I do really like WFRP 3rd ed. Its different and fresh and does not have the trapings of 4th ed.

I would like to get my group to try WFRP. But I am not sure how they will like it because rveryone likes the battlemat and minis. I am thinking of just telling them I want to try something different and run"a day late and a schilling short." I am not very good at describing things and I think if i tell them about WFRP they will think its like 4th ed because of the power cards and all that.

Anyone else have ideas?

You can still use the minis (and the battlemat if you want), you just won't have to keep track of the exacts number of squares in WFRP3e. For a group used to tactical gaming I think you should use location cards and also include a bit of scenery effects in the battles. For example, mark things like tables, chairs and stairs on the battlemat (or if you don't use the mat, place something to mark their location for the purpose of being in the same encounter as them). Having the environment represented on the board makes the system a bit less abstract, but it can be quite nice, since it tends to give the players ideas on how to use it to their advantage. E.g. maybe they want to throw a chair at an opponent to hinder them (I would treat that as a maneouevre that give one misfortune to the enemy's next action).

I don't know how the game compares to Pathfinder/DnD3.5 (i've just leafed through the rules), but my impression is that also Pathfinder has it's fair share of different attacks/abilities that can be used during a battle. I can't really see the difference in having this on cards or in the book. I guess the recharge mechanism might be the tricky thing, but once they get used to the idea, it's not that hard to keep track of.

The strength of combat in WFRP3e is really the way that the dice can be interpreted into an actual story and that the action cards can inspire both GM and players to narrate their combat moves a bit more than just "I attack". It is also a lot quicker than most systems that use minis/battlemats.

Don't be afraid to add fortune and/or misfortune (or even challenge dice) if you feel it's motivated. That is your job as a GM. And don't forget the ACE budget of the monsters

I used "battlemats" and minis for "A Day Late and a Shilling Short" and it went over really well. I kept all the rules as they were, and "ignored" the grid. It felt pretty natural. Actually I would say it recalled 1st Edition D&D in a lot of ways. I the abstract I guess.

(In fact since "battlemats" is in quotes, I should note that I didn't technically use a battlemat. I have a DLP projector in my ceiling so I projected a nice map image of a road through a forest and didn't bother with a grid at all. But that is neither here nor there.)

maybe

engaged - 1 square away

close - 6 squares away

medium - 12 squares

long - 24

extreme - 48

It sounds like your group will enjoy WFRP using miniatures instead of the stand-ups. We also tend to employ minis from the GW line for WFRP. The use of location cards worked well for our group when we played "Day Late" so maybe you should give your group a chance to experience it. There is a card for the coach on Hammerzeit you might like to use.

http://74.53.20.230/hammerzeit/

reidchapman said:

You can use the idea from Reidchapman or my. It's a little bit smaller (fit for a medium table ).

I use the map from Descent: The Sea Of Blood. It's easy to use becouse it's not a board just a map so You can fold it the way You like. It works like this:

engaded = 1 square away (next to the character)

close = 3 squares away

medium = 5 squares away

long = 9 squares away

extreme = 15 squares away

I really like the FFG satnd-ups, those got the real feel of the Old World. But the idea of minis is good if the players want it, personally I use the ones from Descent, Talisman from time to time. If I don't have a perfect mini - use the stand-up.

I ran a home-brew demo adventure several times this year at DundraCon. As a wargammer I used minis and terrain from my collection. We enjoyed the heavily visual trappings but maintained the abstract nature of the rules. For example; when it was the roadwarden's turn he simply moved where he wanted to go and I told him how many maneuvers that was. When he asked about the bandits I told him what range away they were. Within a few minutes all the players had a rough idea of the "scale" of the scene without us having to break things down into inches or squares.

One of the advantages of this was keeping things moving along (players weren't worried about a single square or half an inch positioning), and the ability for me as the GM to make things relative for each character.

I was thinking of doing the same thing and like this idea. reidchapman's ranges where spot on with what I was thinking. But what about movement?

My take on it is to keep it basic and everyone moves 6". I dont have the book in front of me but it need to take account of the range and time the game already has set moving to that range.