superklaus said:

Did we really need a system to tell us again how to manage our minis? Did we need everything broken down to seconds and miliseconds as some artificial limitation on the combat round based on a bunch of half-baked notions again? Did we need another system that told us how to roll dice, add and subtract from the roll and get a result...again? So you don't want a chewing gum setting, but you want a chewing gum system? That doesn't make sense to me.

Your interpretation of 3e from your first "read" is not at all suprising and is the par the course, 3 major complaints that don't even make a whole lot of sense. The setting is instantly expanded in the core box/adventurer's Toolkit over what 2e ever offered. Sure, it's not vast yet, but we have rules for Elves, Dwarves, High Elves and the like. I know, no halflings, but GW shot those guys in the face so I imagine FFG doesn't have much choice or are saving them for a later suppliment. You're conjecturing also on their release schedule, which we do not know yet. I am sure by the end of next year, we will have seen at least one sub-race, if not more. Each sub-race box I'm sure will be very worth it, full of fantastic stuff for us to use and add. I know, patience is not a virtue amongst Impulse shoppers (which so many gamers are) but to conjecture it will take until 2015 is insane and is not based on anything. So they have released one core box...that covers a little of everything...one adventurer's toolkit that covers everything, then one specific winds of magic suppliment. Oh, and the demo game coming up is a party of dwaves dealing with dwarf problems in a dwarf mountain where they say we will get a preview of what is coming for the game. My guess is...wait, long before 2015 we're getting a Dwarf suppliment soon.

Savage Worlds use cards, chips and bennies, but you object to the aesthetic of the tokens here? Simply get new tokens. We use gem counters. We find them way better than what ffg supplied. Use whatever you like, whatever adds color in your mind. Drop a frinking broad sword on the table for fortune if it makes you feel better. You can criticize the token simply from an aesthetic point when it's so easy to change.

I started out running 5 players off one core box and it worked just fine. I then ran seven off that one box and it wasn't the system that was lurching, it was the fact I had too many players. It suggests 3 because it plays most comfortably with 3, but we had no issue. At first it was a trip for a few card photocopies...the same copies I'd have to make of a character sheet.

Now for some meat with those potatoes, the divergent approach is what makes it a solid game. By your defense of the "traditional" model you are basically saying, there is no reason to ever create a new rpg system because we already have x system in place that can do x in the way we have always done x. Yes that is absolutely true. I completely agree. I stopped buying RPG's all together 12 years ago except for a few titles. If I wanted vampire-horror, I grabbed white-wolf. Epic Fantasy about character internal conflict, I grabbed Pendragon. Horror of any kind, I grabbed Cthulhu. Hack and Slash, All Flesh Must Be Eaten. Then, I became so fed up with the limitations of those math-driven mechanics, finding myself spending so much time fine tuning, and wanting something new than all those traditional RPG'S offered with their flat I-hit-you-hit mechanics (which create a flat, I succeed, I succeed a little better, I fail) mechanics that I just designed my own. We wanted a new game, in a few nights I'd right a game, proxy in whatever special abilities from another system. Fact is, no system could ever touch Mage: The Ascension Magic. It was perfect for that type of casting. If I needed a list of spells it was already there. Savage Worlds is a build-your-own kit that is alright, but not the best of its kind in my opinion. So I didn't buy anything. I even ran a game store and still didn't buy anything, didn't bother to crack a book, because as the way I saw it, all the new systems (including Savage Worlds) were bringing absolutely nothing new to the table. RPG'S were stagnant, boring and from a design point, a copy of a copy (with d6 or bunches of dice or whatever). In my opinion, the "traditional" model and that mentality is exactly what's killing the market.

I know all some gamers want to do with RPG is fight and fight and fight and get very tactical maps out and everything for it. But there are much better engines for that in my opinion, miniature war-games being the first, but video games even better. Radio can't compete with Videos so Radio has to do its own thing or die. What RPG experience really holds for the market is the narrative aspect. This is why toning down what a Video game does a thousand times better and focusing RPG'S on the one thing video games can't do better which is Narrative is the call to go. The agenda it should push.

But I will say, 3e doesn't. 3e can be shifted to match whatever group plays it in the blink of an eye, seamlessly and unoticably. You want tactics and squares, it in. You took the time to convert Savage Worlds to Warhammer, I'm sure it wouldn't take too much time to crack open any other gaming book in the universe to find a mini-system that would fit perfectly. Even the acclaimed indie writers brought very few or innovative stuff to the table That's like saying we don't need electric cars because gas cars are fine. 3e, like any other game, is what you make it. It simply takes foresight and ingenuity. All the components, strange dice, and mechanics are spot on and are a refreshing change to an otherwise dead and repetative market.

If this makes me divergent, good. I will gladly continue.

Thanks commoner for summing up why the hobby is on the brink of extinction even if there are more new players coming in than ever before, its a stagnant pool with new stream to it, the few people that do try to do something different gets slapped over the head by the "fear of the unknown", and here I was thinking that part of roleplaying was to explore the new and embrace the unknown, ah! Well.

Another hurdle that I think some people have is that they are not against a new system, or funny dice or even the cards. Its that someone DARED! Change anything with "their" beloved warhammer setting, total shock and horror when they found out that 3ed wasn't like 2nd ed just a rules rehash and then some setting material that we had read a million times before.

Remember when the "Rat Catcher's Tale" started circulating, everyone where like wheeeeeee new edition of warhammer FRP, its gonna rock, they are gonna start making books for us again (it had been a while since we had had a 2E book). Much squealing of delight and joy until someone from FFG updated the site with a picture of some dice and cards. Then AMG! New things that are different, no wai, I can't use my old books Noooooo! Heres an idea, you still can, you just need to wait a little and new crunch will come out, you do know that a setting is so much more than its rules right? And if you want to use savage worlds or what not then you can buy the books, free of dice and cards a lot cheaper than the box's as PDFs and still get the new fluff, this is more win/win than warhammer has ever been before and still with moaning and the crying, I wonder how some of you guys would have survived in 1988 when we had to go all the way into the the city, there would be one store that had a handful of books, a few ugly ass minnies and two maps that they didn't want to sell you. You could choose between GURPS, D&D and Warhammer FRP 1E and maybe, just maybe they had tunnels and trolls, no freebies, no pdf character sheets, no maps online that you could handily print out, no errata, no free demo scenarios or so on. I guess I am just tired of all the moaning that something changed and now its not like it used to be.

UncleArkie said:

Actually, 1988 is the year before Shadowrun was released by FASA. I had given up on RPG's all together at that point. 1989 was the year though. Shadowrun crashed into the market and reinvigorated gaming for me pulling me away from the video games and back into RPGs. I never liked GURPS (not a fan of plug and play rulesets), D&D was on it's deathbed in my opinion by that point and I couldn't find a WFRP 1e product in my local hobby shops to save my life. That's right... back then we didn't have game stores. We had to pick up our books in whatever hobby shop or book store was willing to carry our product. It wasn't easy back then go get game products.

I'm not specifically targeting UncleArkie above for what I'm about to discuss below.

To change the subject completely here for a moment, I think one of the main issues I have with this forum is the propensity for people who love WFRP3 to jump down the throats of those that don't. Most complaining or giving the game a bad rating are not asking for you to convince them to like the game. They are expressing their opinions just like you are when you describe your love of the game.

Is WFRP3 novel in it's approach to RPG design? It's debatable. They incorporated elements of boardgames that FFG had in it's line up for a number of years and made the leap into making it an RPG. When you look at the mechanics of this game, it has more in common with Descent than it does with other RPG's out there. I'm NOT calling it a board game, but it has strong ties to board games. The roleplaying aspects are definitely there too, so I see this game a hybrid that fits fully within the RPG category and only partially into the boardgame category. The fact that it's missing a traditional board is a big clue that it's not a board game.

Does everyone like WFRP? Nope.

Are there people out there that do like it? Yes.

Are both opinions valid? Yes.

While there are some out there that are not as eloquent as others at expressing their opinions, I don't think tearing posters and their posts down for being disatisfied with this game is just or warranted. In fact, you could argue that those who love the game are more verbose and defensive in their responses because they have a passion for the game that those who dislike it are missing.

So what if someone only gave the game one read through and didn't try it because it didn't appeal to them. I can try brussels sprouts again and again and guess what? I'm still not going to like them after the hundredth go round. Sometimes you read through a rule set and just find that it doesn't appeal to you. It happens. Alot of people make judgments to leave a game behind over artwork, rules, fluff.... All are valid reasons for leaving.

WFRP3 is not by any stretch of the imagination a bad game. It's just some people are intrigued by the game and others aren't. That's normal and okay.

Anyway, I guess I have no real point to my rant except to express my dissatisfaction with those few individuals on this site that are trying to prove people wrong for not liking WFRP3. It doesn't matter if they give valid or supported reasons for not liking certain aspects of this game system. Maybe they just don't care enough about the game to elaborate on their reasoning.

UncleArkie said:

This is exactly what I was referring to above when I mentioned that is hard to actually come into this forum and express negative opinion about the game.

You offer nothing to the conversation except vile invective and denigration of those that don't share your opinion.

LeBlanc13 said:

LeBlanc13 said:

I edited in the quote no reason for me to quote all of it since its right there and I agree with you 100%, this is the whole debate in a nutshell. Also to derail again, boy Shadowrun, I was 13 when it came out, it had was everything that I wanted having just read neuromancer and islands in the net for the first time plus it had orcs in it XD. Those where the days.

Also I don't mind the mechanics from descent being ported to an RP, it works just fine, it makes it innovative to take something in RPG's and makes it easy to access, from a design philosophy it makes the game unique in an industry that has a tendency to over complicate things.

Shadowspawn said:

Oh! I think that you get me completely wrong here, I don't mind that you don't like the new rules, or that you don't like the format, I'm fine with that if you see just a few lines blow the bit you highlighted there I am actually saying that you can still use the fluff and do what ever you want to with the game. I know you just wanted to incite some more flame and make the pro e3 faction look bad "I banish thee troll, back onto the nether hell from which thee came".

If you have something negative to say about the game do it in a constructive manner, most of the reactionists just seem to throw poop, rehash old arguments, not bring anything new to the debate and then leave while we try and accommodate them and come up with ideas how they can use the new suff for their 2E games.

You are the one calling other people moaners and whiners, not me. I offered very valid and reasoned points on the issues I'm having with the game. You offered insults.

Perhaps you should take another look at the term "troll".

Shadowspawn said:

Everyone calm down. (yes peacekeeper said that).

I think both sides, in general, have valid points and each side has champions that are better at expressing themselves. I also think both sides have a tendancy to insult the other, even whilenot meaning to.

People keep saying that the 2E crowd keep posting the same arguments and complaints. Well, usually complaints dont get fixed, noticed or explained if you only mention them once. But at the same time, the 3E crowd fires back the exact same rhetoric as well.

Simply put. I feel the system as it existed was just fine, better than fine. It could have used a few tweaks, but not a whole revamp. I am also not a fan of dice pool games and symbol based results. I want you all to enjoy your game however.

In fact I would indeed play in a 3E game with some of you guys (maybe not commoner, cause if he talks as much as he types in his posts, it could be a long game LOL thats a joke). But there is a difference between being social and playing a game out of friendship or common hobby than playing a game you actually like. I play monopoly with my nieces and I hate that game more than I have 3E. I would rather play Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, DC Heroes (MEGS), 2E and many other games over 3E.

But perhaps this has gone on long enough. Or perhaps a new thread needs to be started that allows new players, and confused grognard anti-3E gamers (such as me) a place to ask questions about rules, ideas and thoughts or in general bash them as we like. And there the pro 3E crowd can defend the rule. But with no targeting of individuals.

Peacekeeper's post really clarified the problem for me. I'm confused about the purpose of the critical posts in the first place. You don't like it. Okay. Got it. But it's not like FFG's going to look at your post and say, "Oh, my God! YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT! The cards ARE a dumb idea because they distract some people! Hey, gang. Shut down distribution! Let's redesign from the bottom up. 4e, HERE WE COME! NOW WITH MOAR LIZARDMANZ!!1!!"

So...what's the purpose? It's a hobby on the main publisher's site, set up not really as a social space, but as a space to ask rules questions and share strategies for running and playing the game. If this were a general Warhammer site, I could see the point of us coming together to discuss our differing visions of the world and the rulesets that we think best express our interactions with it. But when you come to the publisher's site just to say, "Hey, guys, I hate this game"...well, what are you looking for? Confirmation that not everyone loves it? The chance to convert some fence-sitters to hating it like you do? FFG to change what you dislike in 4e? The chance to see yourself speak in print?

If the purpose is to let FFG know that you hate some aspects of the game, then it shouldn't surprise you that the rest of us feel the need to speak up and say we like those things that you hate. I, for one, would be really disappointed if FFG scrapped the cards in a future release of this game, and I want them to know that just as much as those of you who hate the cards want them to know that.

I'm not bashing the content of the complaints. As I've said, I see why this stuff might not work for certain groups. But I guess when I see someone come on and say, "I paid $100 for this and now I can't run it!" my first response is to want to help them get their $100 worth out of the set and to share my own love of this game with them. Many of our writers, though, don't really seem to want help with running or using the game; they just want affirmation for not liking it.

I've bought games and gaming systems before that looked great on the outside and were horrible once you took a closer look. I had fun reading them, then I put them on my shelf and forgot about them. I didn't go to the forums for the gaming company and complain that I didn't like themeven when one of my favorite studios absolutely ruined my previously favorite RPG. Maybe I'm just weird?

I guess I'm genuinely curious. What do those of you who strongly dislike the game really want when you visit this forum? I'm not being purposefully obtuseI'm really curious. It would help me (and, I think, many of us) respond more constructively to you.

First off I would like to apologise if it ever came across like I targeted anyone as a moaner and a whiner, the zeist if what I am trying to say is this: This forum is about Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, currently its dedicated to the 3rd edition of that, that is what we debate. If you have a gripe about the game, something you would like to see improved or debate how to improve it in your game, then thats what this forum is for. If you just want to vent your frustration that there are no more 2e then fine, go ahead, but this is not the forum for it, the 2nd ed forums where taken down by FFG, but I am sure that strike to stun can accommodate your needs for that. Now I don't mind that you don't like the game, I like it you don't have to, but I am sure as hell not going to tell you to like it and gtfo off.

Now if you just want to talk about roleplaying in the grim world of warhammer fantasy in general, good themes, lore and so on then this is most likely for that as well, we all love the world remember.

Now specifically at shadowspawn, your the only one targeting anyone without bringing anything constructive to the debate at all you do is go "I don't like this guy he disagrees with me whahh whhha", I have never mentioned anyone in my posts up until now saying that they where anything bad. So by my definition your the troll.

Apparently you didn't read any of my previous posts where I offered actual real concrete reasons that four different groups had real issues with the game. I made my post in good faith. The subject of this thread is a "rolling" opinion of WFRP3, and as my opinion has changed or evolved I decided to post what issues I've seen with the game.

Perhaps I shouldn't have acknowledged you calling people that don't like the game moaners and whiners, but I did. You made a fairly broad and insulting statement so I responded.. Obviously you would rather keep me calling someone a troll than contribute to the conversation meaningfully. You said yourself that you didn't target anyone specific.. you were broadly insulting a group of people. That is less than helpful.

I made my posts about the game in good faith and was hoping to see some response on whether other people had that problem and if they did have an issue, how did they overcome it.

I'm not saying any more on the subject, as you'll just try and twist my motives for posting here.

Thanks for being so helpful.

Peacekeeper_b said:

(this is not aimed at Peacekeeper specifically, just following up this paragraph)

I think it's completely fine to have those discussions here, but if you go to a forum dedicated to a certain game and start writing about perceived (or real for that matter) rule problems you really have to accept that people will disagree. I'm not saying that it's ok with personal attacks, but why not just ignore the people who reply with trashtalk? If you just ignore those replies and focus on the pro-3e crowd that actually tries to answer your queries/problems in a polite way we can still use the forum to discuss these issues. I very much agree with Llanwyre's post above.

There is one thing only that I really think we should try to avoid discussing, because it will just tend to degrade whatever discussion we're having into a flame war. The "wfrp3e is a board game" issue. Just don't go there. I refuse to be dragged into that discussion any longer, I will only say that if you really think that after trying the game, you are really not playing the same game as me. For that matter you probably have a totally different definition on what a RPG is, which makes any further discussion pointless.

To Superklaus, hehe, I think it's pretty clear that you will never ever like 3e. It is many things but definitely not a simulationist game. I personally find simulationist games incredibly boring. Having to worry about millions of small details (which simulationist games usually force you to do) while trying to roleplay and build a story is about a million times more distracting for me than recharge tokens can ever be. And the recharge token mechanic is my main problem with 3e as it is, I wish they could have come up with something different for this.

Yikes. Reading through the thread, and I'm sad to see members of the community so hostile to people who don't like WFRPG3. Reminds me of the WotC forums after 4e, when those playing 3.X were still around. Warhammer players tend to be more mature in my experience so I'm a bit surprised.

I have yet to play WFRPG3. So far, not too much luck finding people to play with. I'm open to it, but admit I was initially put off it (due mainly to the "bits" that are included).

In any case, I think as Warhammer fans we probably all have a lot more in common than things that separate us, whether we like WFRPG3 or not. Worth keeping in mind.

................................

Shadowspawn said:

What I found when introducing people to the game is that they are generally quite resistant to it (unless they're really enthusiastic for it), probably because of all the new bits and pieces that they are not used to. I playtested the game and got a commitment from my players to play multiple sessions, so getting them to play several sessions was not an issue. But I would suggest that the problem might be that one session or so just isn't enough.

I was surprised as things went on and as we played more how things soon got a lot smoother and a lot more intuitive. That might be unusual for an RPG where one session is usually enough to tell if you fancy the system or not. But whereas most games have a learning curve as you gradually pick up more and more about the system, istm that WFRP has more of a learning bump, and suddenly you get over it, and after that things make a lot more sense.

Of course I'm not suggesting that you have to play more sessions or force your players into it or anything. If you don't want to play, there are tons of games out there. But I am making the observation that if you got the same result from four different trials then something is going wrong and something different might work. I'd suggest several sessions of coherent campaign is probably the best way to get people into the game.

monkeylite said:

Yeah, that is probably true. I thought of trying to find a group that would make a commitment to running through and finishing Gathering Storm. Anyone know roughly how many sessions that would take? Say 5-6 hours per session?

Shadowspawn said:

I suspect that varies widely from group to group. My group is about 20 hours in, and we are only at the very beginning of the third chapter. Of course, my group will roleplay with the cobblestones in the road if I describe them too enticingly. (If my group is out there, I love you. I really do.)

Incidentally, I often wonder if that's why I have so few frustrations with the rules. We end up using them so seldom in any complex waywe just mostly storytell.

Llanwyre said:

Good question. One thing I've seen is that running combats where there are going to be a lot of A/C/E pools to deal with looks pretty scary. Also, what about the basic actions that all monsters can make, like Melee and Ranged Attack. Without extra cards to assign to the NPCs, how do you guys handle these basic actions?

Shadowspawn said:

Shadowspawn said:

I don't need to twist them, they are pretty clear, to incite a flame war, especially when you and I do agree, people here need to be more welcoming towards the old guard that don't like the game, my opinion has form the start been that both sides need to take a chill pill. Now if you target me I will respond so you did get the post that you wanted so you now can sit back and feel indignant

Also I agree with that as a scenario there is not much meat on A day late, how ever keep in mind that its a demo, its there to provide a setting to show off the new mechanics and combat is a big part of it, if you or in this case your players don't see that then, yes, its not very good.

I'd like to remind people of FFG's Forum Posting Policies .

I'll especially point out guideline number 4.

4. Treat everyone (users or not) with respect, while enjoying the freedom to disagree with their ideas.

Ad hominem attacks and inflammatory comments are neither constructive nor acceptable content.

Shadowspawn said:

Maybe this makes me a terrible person, but I tend to figure out a couple of moves that each NPC or set of NPCs is likely to use, and use them. I don't freak out about using all of the available skills 100% of the timeI streamline. If it's a major tactical encounter, I'll have more actions available, or setup "groups" more likely to be doing ranged attacks or melee attacks. The only time when I worry about having a full set of NPC actions available to my guys is when the NPC is a major named character. Frankly, i find that the PCs are so scared about saving their own hides that they don't notice that the monsters aren't using a wide variety of interesting and innovative combat moves.

If it's a complex encounter, I might make little boxes on my wipe-off NPC sheets to track recharges, which also streamlines things. I can show you my sheets if you'd like.

Also, re: A Day Late, I think that adventure's pretty ho-hum. I ran it twice, and only had success when I added a LOT of flavor to it. (I'm also happy to share my modified version with you if you'd like.) In fact, the people I ran it for without modification didn't like the game much, but the ones I ran the modified version for liked it enough to become my ongoing group!

I'd like to see your wipe off NPC sheets. I'm considering a magnetized sheet I can have beside the screen for tracking stuff.

Although I do agree that I don't have to use every single action available/etc, its the resource management effort I have to make in the event I want to use all the tools at hand that causes me fits. I think some sort of NPC tracker with stats and then a box around the lip I can tick/mark off for card recharges (one per basic action plus a few for additional actions) would go a long way to clear the clutter. Then just need an easier way to keep track of the cards I am using.

WARNING: This community forum has not been created as a place for gamers to attack each other, berate each other, or make personal insults.

We offer and provide community web forums because we had expected that you all would choose to engage in discussion, share opinions, and offer creative feedback to each other.

Making personal attacks on fellow forum members will not be tolerated. If you have any questions or concerns, contact us directly via the Report to Moderator link.

[Apologies for the interruption…]

The Gathering Storm took us 12 4 hour sessions. I don't know if that's standard, but the players at my LGS are very good at modules. I think I heard somewhere, 16.

As for the rest...

When using the system straight (which we do at my LGS) when I run combats with monsters, I look at the power sheet. A recharge of 2 basically means they can use it every other turn. So I do that. A recharge of 3 or four, honestly, I don't bother with recharge...I just commit to using it once then move on. Combats barely last more than three rounds anyway. In the rare times a rally step has happened without the big bad-guy getting whacked, I simply use the more than 2 recharge power after the Rally Step - but that's come up only once. I don't bother keeping track of round to round junk like that because I want to focus on the story, roll interpretation, and maneuvers.

One major point that many people miss about this combat system is it's not actually designed to interpret rolls/actions on a round by round basis. If you look at the Tome of Adventure in the description of interpreting the dice rolls, the roll is described as the result of a series of blows, not a single attack action, etc. This is why there is no "battlemap" or the like for the system and why in one round, you could blow through maneuvers to run across a field, jump a gorge, dodge a falling tree and stab an Orc. While for someone else, they may draw a sword and stab once. This factor also applies to how you can also have multiple location cards on the table and characters can move from one to the next so easily (depending on the range between them). This also explains why the base difficulty to hit is an easy task because it reflects the result of an extreme series of blows (in my opinion - eventually your opponent will hit you if you don't get out of the way or defeat them). With that being said, difficulty is also available to modify the mechanics in any way needed. When fighting a serious Nemesis to the party (like a Chaos Leader) when you are a lowly rat catcher you can easily set the difficulty higher for the rat-catcher to score hits (such as 3 purple) where a Troll Slayer it might be a little easier (maybe only 2 purple or 3 purple with a bonus fortune or two for being an expert fighter, so it's easier to hit the chaos leader). Of course, that is up to the GM's interpretation for each combat...it's whatever they want to get out of it for the story and characters. I agree the flavor of the 3e combat is less about tactical grid decision making. But it does so with the gain of putting combat in the hands of the narrative elements of who the character's are, how they fight, and what they do in the combat. There are many, many tactical choices to consider as well, such as using maneuvers to get advantages, who acts on which initiative order. Does the troll slayer go first and attack the trollt, leaving his friends to deal with the overwhelming hordes of goblins? From the GM'S perspective lets say the Troll Slayer does charge the Troll, well, that leaves the Black Orc Boss to go pound the poor Student into the ground unopposed by the Slayer. Another strong tactical consideration is the use of assist maneuvers and action cards such as guarded position and inspiring words. The tactics just aren't what gamers are used to, but are a new way of doing things that alter tactical decisions in a way that is just as strong, but different than the typical battle mat style.

There are also tons of ways to personalize the chits in the game as well. A priest of Moor picked up some skull counters. The dwarf player could use snotling models from the Warhammer line. The Student inventor from Nuln could use watch gears. It would all be good fun and would add tons of flavor (the Nuln idea comes from a player in my group). It's just up to the players or GM to add that flavor. I am thankful that FFG supplied the tokens, but if you want personalization of the chits, well, go on and personalize beyond the generic. Just as you could use cardboard counters in Savage Worlds (or deadlands) poker chips have just that much more flavor. The only difference is that system comes with no "chits" to use for the number of counters, where as Warhammer just threw some in (which is helpful for players who don't want to bother personalizing). Like I said, if a broad sword adds flavor as fortune, throw some swords around (lol).

I do agree that one session is not enough to judge the system. When we first started out we used no recharge, no action cards, no location cards and no trackers, just the dice and fatigue/stress tokens and a party card. Once we got used to them, we added bit after bit until we found that almost all of the bits are actually useful. I love trackers. They do really help reinvent how player's approach combat and how a GM can shape that combat. (if you want to know more just ask). The location cards, when read generically, help to add flavor mechanically to an already flavorful narrative scene. Before long, we were using almost all of it and loving it. Besides my LGS group, my standard group does not use recharge tokens. We adjusted a few cards (sleeves with labels stuck on them with the changed stats), but it did not take long at all. As I have said before I will say it again, recharge (except for cards that have an effect to track duration: "while the card is recharging") is my absolute least favorite part of the system and my strongest criticism against 3e. Something that is easily ignored most of the time, it just depends on how you run things (again, if you want to know more just ask).

@ Peacekeeper

LOL, No, my games run much shorter than my posts. I simply have found in other forums, if you don't fully explain yourself, you spend more time clarifying your posts or having one line you wrote taken way out of context than you do actually discussing anything useful. Typing and Writing are second nature to me.

keltheos said:

Sure! I'm away from my comp tonight, but I'll put them up in the morning.

@commoner: The way you describe the recharges is pretty much what I do, unless there's some reason to track things more carefully. You explained it quite well. Also, I LOVE your idea about the personalized chits. What a great way to get reluctant players to feel as though the bits are a part of "their" character!

Now I want to come play in your game....