Rolling opinion thread of WHFRP 3.

By Crazy Aido, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Posted at

Congzilla said:

I have the same problem with people saying this is a board game as I do people saying D&D 4e is "non-roleplaying". D&D 4e offers just as much roleplaying ability as any other version of D&D, any version of WFRP, or Pathfinder. These are all just rules system for resolving actions, roleplaying comes from the players not the system.

I hear this a lot. And it is rubbish. The system has a huge effect on roleplaying, because it governs what actions are possible, what are in the expected rulesets, the tone of the system (realistic/not), chances of death, expected roles of the characters (in D&D you are the heroes, in WFRP you might be but it's mostly by accident)

Yes, good roleplaying can overcome limitations and drawbacks from a system. But to say that it doesn't have an effect is nonsense.

Posted at

phobiandarkmoon said:

Congzilla said:

I have the same problem with people saying this is a board game as I do people saying D&D 4e is "non-roleplaying". D&D 4e offers just as much roleplaying ability as any other version of D&D, any version of WFRP, or Pathfinder. These are all just rules system for resolving actions, roleplaying comes from the players not the system.

I hear this a lot. And it is rubbish. The system has a huge effect on roleplaying, because it governs what actions are possible, what are in the expected rulesets, the tone of the system (realistic/not), chances of death, expected roles of the characters (in D&D you are the heroes, in WFRP you might be but it's mostly by accident)

Yes, good roleplaying can overcome limitations and drawbacks from a system. But to say that it doesn't have an effect is nonsense.

Of course the system has an effect. But it's not as clear-cut as you write either. A system that might be incredibly boring and non-conduicive to roleplaying for someone might be the perfect match for another groups roleplaying. I have no problem seeing that roleplaying in DnD might work extremely well for some people, while at the same time feeling that the system is too crunchy (my main gripe would actually be "too balanced") for me myself to enjoy. Your mileage may vary...

Posted at

Yes you can roleplay in 4th edition, but its more difficult than in other rpgs. Despite what some think system matters always.

I played this game more than half a year on a weekly basis as GM to allow myself such a judgement. Just look at the official adventures, WotC sells. Much more combat than in previous edition, sometimes 90%+ of the book is descriptions of tactical situtation.

I dont want to go very deeply in detail so for most of people I know and myself DnD4 is a boardgame with some roleplaying options. And even for that its not a good game. As a boardgame it sucks and becomes boring if you play it many months and as a rpg it sucks too.

But there are good aspects of 4e too. Eg, they put much effort in the readability of the modules and the stat blocks of their monsters. The cosmology is well thought out and the best out there for any fantasy rpg IMO. And everything has good color grafics which is a big plus in my books. The rest is meh...

Posted at

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Posted at

Congzilla said:

I have the same problem with people saying this is a board game as I do people saying D&D 4e is "non-roleplaying". D&D 4e offers just as much roleplaying ability as any other version of D&D, any version of WFRP, or Pathfinder. These are all just rules system for resolving actions, roleplaying comes from the players not the system.

But some systems support it better than others. I've had trouble roleplaying in any edition of D&D. It's just too restrictive for me, and D&D4 is no different. It even feels more like a skirmish-level wargame, and completely fails to trigger my RPG-button. And yes, I have played it. A lot of people in my group (former D&D haters, most of them) love it enough to play it quite regularly. I'm hoping to convert them to WFRP3, because I need my RPG fix, and D&D4 doesn't cut it for me.

Posted at

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

Posted at

superklaus said:

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

A healing surge is different than a rally step how? They serve the same function.

Roleplayer worth their salt? Got to love nerd snobbery. A roleplayer "worth their salt" would flavor the power in a fashion that fits the setting. That is what roleplaying is.

Posted at

Congzilla said:

A healing surge is different than a rally step how? They serve the same function.

They serve a somewhat similar function (if you look at them from really far away), but have a dramatically different effect and purpose. A Healing Surge heals quite a lot, and fixes you up for the next encounter. Damage doesn't matter in the long run, it only depletes your reservoir of healing surges, and when you're out, it's time to call it a day and get some rest.

WFRP's rally step works nothing like that. You recover some fatigue or stress, and maybe get to perform some first aid, but that's it. It's no magical "boom! ready to go again!" effect.

Healing surges exist entirely to enable characters to keep going again while having each encounter be potentially deadly, so you can have several deadly encounters per day, and suffer no long-term ill-effects from any of them. It's entirely a play-balance mechanism.

The rally step, on the other hand, is a narrative mechanism. It tells you that a new phase of the encounter is about to start. It allows you to do a few things to prepare for that next phase in the story, but not a lot. If you did badly in the first part, you'll still be seriously hurt after the rally step.

WFRP is not designed to support a long string of deadly combat encounters on a single day. D&D is. Because it's unrealistic, and because D&D doesn't care.

Posted at

superklaus said:

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

I think you're making the assumption that all good roleplayers want or need a low-powered campaign. Good RP can come out of any style of campaign. In fact, I'd say that the mark of a roleplayer truly "worth his salt" is one that manages to build compelling, character-driven narrative anywhere: in DnD4, in WFRP v1 v2 or 3e, or heck, even in WoW. I'd argue that not all of those venues are ideal to explore every type of character or every theme, but a good roleplayer can manage and can inspire others to RP in any or all of them.

That being said, I'd also argue, as Congzilla did, that different groups will find different systems better for the RP struggles they wish to face. I'm with you that the kind of RP that comes out of DnD is less satisfying for me than the kind that comes out of other systems, but I remain unconvinced that that may be true for everyone else or that those who find it satisfying are somehow beneath my awesome level of RP. :)

Posted at

I really feel this comes more from the group playing than the system being played. Some players are min maxers and want the most optimized character possible. Some players like myself would rather pick powers based on our concept for the character rather than what is most effective. The group dynamic is the main thing driving the roleplaying. Some groups like to skip over the travel and investigation aspects and get straight to hacking things up. Other groups will spend an entire session roleplaying out how they got from one city to another. Neither group is wrong, it is just a different style and either style could be played just as effectivly using most any system.

What the actual system effects mostly is once the fight breaks out how detailed do you want the combat to be. D&D 4e obviously has much more detailed combat, that is it's strength. WFRP 3e has much deadlier combat and more detailed ongoing effects of combat (stress / fatigue & insanities). But the detail or deadliness do not effect how you as a player roleplay your characters actions. I think I have a decent point of reference since my wife modeled her WFRP character off of her D&D 4e character (Eldrin Ranger = High Elf Envoy with a bow).

I am not saying one is better than the other, I own both and enjoy playing both (heck I own probably two dozen systems from playing rpg's for almost 20 years and I enjoy them all).

This debate does remind me of one of my favorite quotes. And fyi no I am not implying anyone here sucks :P

"Life is 99% what you make of it, so if your life sucks, you suck."

Posted at

superklaus said:

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

I'm glad there are superior people like this around to let us all know we are all doing it wrong ...

Either that, or there are a number of different ways of playing, each with different goals and conventions, and all are legitimate as long as they provide enjoyment. Just because you personally may not game this way or that does not make one style less than another.

I'm constantly amazed at how a hobby that fosters imagination and creativity harbors so many with such narrow definitions of how to properly play make-believe.

Posted at

Doc, the Weasel said:

I'm constantly amazed at how a hobby that fosters imagination and creativity harbors so many with such narrow definitions of how to properly play make-believe.

LOL! That's just right! Except...

Definitions?! DefinitionS?! There's only ONE WAY to make believe properly, and if you're doing it PROPERLY, it works for EVERYONE, 100% of the time. Didn't you get the memo?!

I think we all feel so passionately about our favorite systems and styles of gameplay (and least favorite, too) that it's easy to overstate our own preferences. I know I can go a wee bit feral when it comes to systems like Anima that consist of endless charts and tables.

Posted at

We (read me, hollier than hollier of GMs), play our game (any rpg you would like to mentioned), in a way that is more superior than yours. Because I (read insane gm), have a firmer grip on the meaning of roleplay, immersion and symmetry effects. My semantic skills are fare superior than yours, ergo our way of playing must be best. Heck there should be an award with prize for the way we play.

And only we (still meaning me megalomanic GM) play it how it was intended to be played before the ill-omened revised beta version (some 1.00.002). Your way of playing it is a grievious insult to how it should be played... our way.

And the only clear course of such an offense is to answer back as patronizing and insulting I can without sounding petty. Too the lab-mobile, activate devious irony programe 1.03, activate matrix 12b hurting and insulting remarks, activate superior weakness syndrome.

sigh* This isn`t a flamewar start, unless some of you wants it to be. And frankly let the guy-soon-to-be-married, well let him be. congratulations by the way. may you have many splendid years ahead of you.

I am sure he didn`t intend for such a upheated discussion, and that maybe someone is overracting abit. Let him have his 2 cent of worth. It would be interesting to see what his outcome of this game would be, when he got arround to try it. However I fear that we will never get to know that, if we persistently try to attack everything he says. Cut him some slacks. And maybe in a few months from now would get to read more pleasant things on this thread.

Good gaming

Posted at

Doc, the Weasel said:

superklaus said:

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

I'm glad there are superior people like this around to let us all know we are all doing it wrong ...

Either that, or there are a number of different ways of playing, each with different goals and conventions, and all are legitimate as long as they provide enjoyment. Just because you personally may not game this way or that does not make one style less than another.

I'm constantly amazed at how a hobby that fosters imagination and creativity harbors so many with such narrow definitions of how to properly play make-believe.

Its nothing about narrow definition. Congzilla claimed that he transform 4th edition into a low-powered rpg, which is IMO impossible, except you rewrite the whole engine. I tried to proof my point by mentioning which elements are making it impossible (eg. healing surges and "magically type" powers). Additionally cutting the healing surges out means cutting out one of the core elements of the system and would lead to an weakening and invalidation of other 4e mechanics like the encounter mechanic. Maybe Congzilla has his own strange definition of "low-powered" but in MY low-powered games (and I play several types of settings ranging from low to high) healing surge mechanics which heal you between combats in only 5min would be not allowed. They are the anti-thesis of "low-powered" while healing with a more natural rate is the correct way to go for a low-powered game.

Of course his claim that healing surges and rally step are similar is also wrong but I wont go into detail why. I dont have much time, English is not my native tongue so its tedious to look for the right vocabularies and thus I will now end my post. :)

Posted at

superklaus said:

Doc, the Weasel said:

superklaus said:

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Congzilla said:

I just finished GMing a year and a half long 4e campaign and I simply do not agree. But this is not the 4e forums so we can leave it at that. I do believe this WFRP 3e system makes much more of an effort to be roleplaying focused than most systems, and I think it succeeds in that regard. My point was simply that a game system is what you make of it. Roleplaying is done by the players not the rules. You could easily create a campaign of high powered heroes in WFRP 3e and you can easily create a low power campaign in 4e. I am pretty sure neither system has rules for what your player says when he encounters the guard he needs to get passed or the noble he needs to sway. Both have rules for combat, very different styles of combat, and each will fit different play styles. Some people will prefer tactical combat, some will prefer it abstract, butto say one play style can offer better roleplaying than the other is nonsense.

Well nonsense maybe for you, but believe it or not in the moment you dabble around with 4e "healing surges" or encounter powers which let suddenly pop up a "cloud of daggers" from thin air and still pretend to play a low-powered campaign, each roleplayer worth his salt gives you roll-eyes.

I'm glad there are superior people like this around to let us all know we are all doing it wrong ...

Either that, or there are a number of different ways of playing, each with different goals and conventions, and all are legitimate as long as they provide enjoyment. Just because you personally may not game this way or that does not make one style less than another.

I'm constantly amazed at how a hobby that fosters imagination and creativity harbors so many with such narrow definitions of how to properly play make-believe.

Its nothing about narrow definition. Congzilla claimed that he transform 4th edition into a low-powered rpg, which is IMO impossible, except you rewrite the whole engine. I tried to proof my point by mentioning which elements are making it impossible (eg. healing surges and "magically type" powers). Additionally cutting the healing surges out means cutting out one of the core elements of the system and would lead to an weakening and invalidation of other 4e mechanics like the encounter mechanic. Maybe Congzilla has his own strange definition of "low-powered" but in MY low-powered games (and I play several types of settings ranging from low to high) healing surge mechanics which heal you between combats in only 5min would be not allowed. They are the anti-thesis of "low-powered" while healing with a more natural rate is the correct way to go for a low-powered game.

Of course his claim that healing surges and rally step are similar is also wrong but I wont go into detail why. I dont have much time, English is not my native tongue so its tedious to look for the right vocabularies and thus I will now end my post. :)

In 4e a healing surge is a narrative element with an attached game play mechanic that represents the character digging deeper within themselves and finding a way to carry on. A rally step is also a narrative element with an attached game play mechanic. Both of which allow the character to heal in some way. They are similar.

The "magical type" powers only seem magical if you use their flavor text. Any of them could easily be re-flavored to fit a low power campaign. Also, it isn't hard at all to build encounters a level above the players to make them more dangerous / deadly and keep the players from appearing overpowered. Yes you have to power up the monsters and NPCs to put the players down to a commoners' level, but it is simple enough to do with the provided system without altering the engine or stripping out mechanics.

Posted at

Congzilla said:

In 4e a healing surge is a narrative element with an attached game play mechanic that represents the character digging deeper within themselves and finding a way to carry on. A rally step is also a narrative element with an attached game play mechanic. Both of which allow the character to heal in some way. They are similar.

A healing surge a narrative element? I've never experienced it as such. And it's not "digging deeper to find a way to carry on", it's digging deeper to find a way to get completely healed with no ill-effects. There's no lingering effects from one encounter to the next. And the surge itself happens (usually) during down time, not in the middle of an encounter to cut it into different phases. They're not really very similar at all.

Posted at

Healing surges are usually only used during downtime if the healing power performed on you by another player causes you to use one (cleric prayers / healing potions) . Once during each encounter, you can take a standard action called a second wind; this gives you a certain amount of hit points back equal to your healing surge value and gives you a +2 bonus to all your defenses until the start of your next turn. The rules clearly state what it is supposed to represent, hence the name "second wind". A healing surge does not instantly completely heal you, you get 1/4hp back, and yes many effects and damage carry over from one encounter to the next.

Honestly it is like you have never even played the game, only played RPGA, or your GM sucked.

Posted at

I have to agree with Congzilla, healing surge and especially the second wind in D&D is quite similar to the rally step of WFRP. And why deny it? when both games are excellent within their own design?

I think the reason why we find similarities between warhammer and Dungeon & Dragons, is that both teams have tried to do something very different with their games than what have come to expect of new editions. Both WotC and FFG are trying to set a new course for rpg industry to follow, a new experience of playing our favourite games through time... RPGs.

For me I think FFG have come closest to do just that, but alas still no gold. What if they somehow managed to both produce crafty sourcebooks like that of PHB, DMG or Dark heresy or Rogue Trader, together with their intriquing boxes? Than I think we will come pretty close to perfection. An ideal warhammer rpg brought to fruition by the first steping stones laid by Jay Little and his team, so many years ago.

The last sentence was meant to be written from the future, expressing that we are still in the progress of taking off. And that in some distant (but not to distant) future warhammer will evolve into something close to perfection. What if in the future we will not only have the warhammer world but warhammer WORLDS. With branches that touch Lustria, the new world, Cathay, the Dark lands and so on. A FFG producing materials to support different warhammer worlds, like a Lustria campaign setting, with wonderful races both to play and fight against, new careers only open for colonials. New exciting talents, action cards just for that region? And what about playing in Cathay as envoys from the Empire, beeing in an enviroment that mirrors that of the empire yet so strange and unfamiliar in culture and practice. And than the rebellion occurs.

As many warhammer players know, we are not even close to fulfill the true potential the warhammer world has to offer. And I want it all, I want to go on treasure expeditions in Lustria`s jungles, hunt exotic beasts in the dark lands, Explore the new world, wrestle my ship against Nippon pirates.

And still after 20 years of playing we have never set foot on the shores of Lustria. But we have defeated dozens of cults, criss-crossed the Empire on many campaigns that in share miles would have taken us right to Lustria. It have been tremendously fun, but still it bothers me that the full potential of the warhammer world has yet to be unleashed.

To FFG I have one word only: Deliver

Deliver and you will have my loyalty, use the potential.

Posted at

Mal Reynolds said:

I have to agree with Congzilla, healing surge and especially the second wind in D&D is quite similar to the rally step of WFRP.

I disagree. Second Wind is an action you perform, like Assess The Situation or something like that. It's nothing like a rally step, other than that it heals you a bit. A player doesn't decide he's going to have a rally step this turn while the others continue fighting.

But the more fundamental difference between rally steps and healing surges is: after the combat is over, you can spend as many healing surges as you like in order to heal back up. There's nothing remotely similar in WFRP. There's no "how many rally steps do we still have today? Let's do 5 now so that I'm completely healed."

I honestly don't understand what's so confuasing about this difference.

Posted at

mcv said:

Mal Reynolds said:

I have to agree with Congzilla, healing surge and especially the second wind in D&D is quite similar to the rally step of WFRP.

I disagree. Second Wind is an action you perform, like Assess The Situation or something like that. It's nothing like a rally step, other than that it heals you a bit. A player doesn't decide he's going to have a rally step this turn while the others continue fighting.

But the more fundamental difference between rally steps and healing surges is: after the combat is over, you can spend as many healing surges as you like in order to heal back up. There's nothing remotely similar in WFRP. There's no "how many rally steps do we still have today? Let's do 5 now so that I'm completely healed."

I honestly don't understand what's so confuasing about this difference.

No one said there wasn't a difference, but to say they are not similar is just plain incorrect. Both mechanics are there for the same reason, to allow characters the chance to recuperate before carrying on. The finite amount of healing surges is also loosely related to fortune points which can be expended in similar ways.

I honestly don't see what is so confusing about the similarity gui%C3%B1o.gif .

Posted at

commoner said:

Simply, this mechanic is leagues beyond what the old 2e system did (except for the speed of combat) and the dice are way more interesting than standard dice.

Personal opinion Commoner. And in my personal opinion you are wrong about that. 2E/1E/40KRPG for me and my group are far superior and open systems that are more appealing, appeasing and satisfying for the type of role players we are, which is the generation of role players who dont need fancy dice, doo dads and scales to run a fun enjoyable game.

Posted at

Peacekeeper_b said:

for the type of role players we are, which is the generation of role players who dont need fancy dice, doo dads and scales to run a fun enjoyable game.

Don't fall off that high horse, we wouldn't want to see you bruise your ego.

Posted at

Peacekeeper_b said:

2E/1E/40KRPG for me and my group are far superior and open systems that are more appealing, appeasing and satisfying for the type of role players we are, which is the generation of role players who dont need fancy dice, doo dads and scales to run a fun enjoyable game.

But you're missing out on a huge tradition! Fancy dice have always been a big part of the RPG hobby. (Though I admit having played d6, GURPS and Shadowrun too.)

Posted at

Peacekeeper_b said:

commoner said:

Simply, this mechanic is leagues beyond what the old 2e system did (except for the speed of combat) and the dice are way more interesting than standard dice.

Personal opinion Commoner. And in my personal opinion you are wrong about that. 2E/1E/40KRPG for me and my group are far superior and open systems that are more appealing, appeasing and satisfying for the type of role players we are, which is the generation of role players who dont need fancy dice, doo dads and scales to run a fun enjoyable game.

Ah yes, them new-fangled doodads! New things are never an improvement and change is always bad! bostezo.gif

Posted at

Correct, we should all still be placing pewter figurines in initiative order and trying to figure out Thac0.