Kryyst said:

Agreed, and if you have other hobbies like I do it is a huge amount of value for money - a box of miniatures these days from GW costs as much almost as one full supplement from FFG (and I buy a gazillion minis each year).

zombieneighbours said:

You're comparing apples and oranges. It may be fair to compare them, but they're still very different, and people have different tastes.

Would you say that a pack of cards (everything you need to play Bridge) is better value than the ASL Rulebook + Beyond Valor (at $150-200, the very basics you need to play ASL)? They're different games.

WFRP with its cards and bits offers a completely different experience from book+paper-based RPGs. If you want a complete RPG at low cost, get Diaspora or some other Fate-based RPG. The books cost about $20, and many are available for free online. And yet they're complete RPGs (unlike gimmicky stuff like Dogs in the Vineyard or 3:16).

Personally I like the convenience that the cards of WFRP offer. If you don't, buy the new Guide books instead. Apparently you can play cardless that way, and have a much more D&D/WoD-like experience.

Our group plays 50%/50% cardless / chitted. Thankfully, nobody has become irreparably scarred for life

jh

..

..

mcv said:

I really don't see how you can make the claim with a straight face. WFRP is a roleplaying game, as are both WoD/DnD/Dogs/pathfinder. The fundimentals are identical. You use dice to determine the outcome of contested credibility between a narrator and players. While the systems are different, what you do with the game is the same.

It isn't like comparing Advance Squad leader and playing cards, for while they are both games, one is a table top war game and the other in not even a game, but a tool for playing and making games.

The experiences of playing may be different, but the experience of playing WoD and Pathfinder are different too, and they are both roleplaying games.

The simple fact is that WFRP could have been produced entirely without the chits, and that it, as a game it has a lot in common with 4e DnD.

Tracker = skill challanges

talents = feats

Action cards = powers

I will probably use the cards, if i ever get around to actually playing, I for instance like the wound cards. But that doesn't means that they represent good value. It is a core rule set for a roleplaying game. It does not let you do anything that other similar products don't let you do, and it costs considerably more.

And here is why, you can measure value indepentantly of taste, by comparing options presented by the two objects.

You can make a judgement about value between ASL and a deck of cards. At five dollars, and presenting hundered if not thoasands of possible games and game varients, not including the ability to generate new games. It is better value, many times over. Taste is a seperate issue, because if you dislike card games, no matter how good value they might be. So yeah, if you don't like WoD, it doesn't matter that it is better value to you, but for me liking all of the listed games(4e least though) value is a concern. And WFRP is poor value, when compare to other Roleplaying Games, which is part of why i have not supported it any where near as well as i have supported Pathfinder or WoD.

mcv said:

Gimmicky stuff likes Dogs in the Vineyard or 3:16? I've knowticed this before, but its very apparent here, people on these boards are allergic to rules lite games, both of those mentioned are amongest the best written and conceptualized games i've ever played, to see them dismissed as gimicky is midly offensive to me personaly, but i'll let that go.

I'm glad they are givign me a way to play without all of the cards and token and BS clutter than 3E tried to bring to my table. Why is my group still playing 2E between pathfinder, deadlands and DH? because its a better game with more consistant rules and doesn't require us to completely cat proof the room.

I haven't had the chance to play 3:16, but dogs is anything but gimmicky. It is a very tight, self contained game, with finely crafted and well written rules, which are designed to force players to make complex, consequence filled, moral decisions. It isn't just one of the best indie games ever written, it deserves consideration as one of the best roleplaying games ever written.

Further more, it kind of suprises me it the boards really are as anti-rules lite as you imply talsine, because it seems to be the defence some here go for, when the 3E rules miss something fundimental.

The presence of a cat at the home of our games host is a pretty big problem with the idea of us playing 3e WFRP also.

I agree with zombieneighbours. Someone has to mention that FFG lied with its claim of "best value". Its by far not the best, that is a simple fact. (especially if you are the fourth player in a group )

OTOH its also fact that the claim is just marketing and in capitalism its normal for a company to advertise even untrue things. I think you boys should cool down and dont over-interprete every single sentence a company writes in an ad. Companies are NOT your friends (including rpg companies) and so dont wonder if not everything is true what they publish. What FFG does and says is NOT an evangelium. This may surprise some of you, but they just want to earn money - yours. And, no there is no such thing like Santa Claus.

Just cause i know it is part of their nature, doesn't mean i'm not going to point and laugh when they do it so transparently

superklaus said:

That's a bold statement from someone who doesn't know the content list from said products.

I understand speculation and nervousness over what could happen, but is all the hyperbole necessary especially this early?

Would this be a good time to poke fun at this whole discussion and just say that I bet the book is only suitable for one player?

Emirikol said:

I'd be the first in line to play. Which is good, because the line only has space for one.