RabidWookie said:

A revolutiony product, would be spawning lots of copy cats. I don't see that happening here.

If after the revolutionary system is released and the traditional method is still more popular, your revolution is a flop.

When you look at it, even FFG realizes that going completely "revolutionary" wasn't the best idea. Now they are putting out the hardcover rulebooks to try and appeal to more traditional gamers and bring back those they lost into the fold. Sure, they'll continue to release products in the current format, but at least they recognized that eliminating that group of players wasn't good for business.

LeBlanc13 said:

It doesn't always happen immediately. TORG's drama deck was pretty revolutionary, but did not immediately spawn a bunch of copy cats. Over the years, however, there have been a number of products directly influenced by it.

Also, revolutionary =/= commercially viable. Sometimes great ideas just don't make enough money to have everyone doing them. FFG is in a unique position in that they can leverage their board game business to produce this kind of rpg.

Amketch said:

This now seems to be confirmed as the case

Doc, the Weasel said:

That's true. A lot of revolutions get put down quickly, ala Dragonlance Saga Edition by TSR.

I guess we'll have to see how this one pans out.

I would say that WFRP is fairly revolutionary. It got me back into roleplaying for the first time in 15 years. I love the cards and the bits. They bleed flavor and get my group into the setting and make them comfortable. They get ideas about what they can do and feel they are part of something interesting.
If I had a group of hard core RPGs, I can see where this wouldn't be as good. If you have a group with a ton of experience then the bits might get in the way. But for me they are invaluable.

I have been looking at the Rouge Trader RPG because I think the setting is interesting, but when I looked at in the store I just couldn't buy it. Why? My group would be thrown without cards and bits. In the end I had to pass and save my money for WFRP. Now if RT came out with an alternative version with cards and bits than I would probably take the plunge.

I guess my point is that I support what FFG is doing here. I think having both options is great. They appeal to different groups of people, and the more people buying WFRP stuff the better for the line. I also feel that the too approaches will combine better than some people think. I see no problem with one of my players deciding that they don’t need cards and can write everything on their sheet.

The FAQ was just updated, and clearly states that the vaults will not contain any of the components from the supplements (just the stuff from the core set, including 3 sets of basic action cards). This means the supplements have not been obsoleted, so my original concern when starting this thread has been addressed. I will continue to enjoy and support WFRP3.

LeBlanc13 said:

You've seen stance, party sheets, and the multi-dimensional dice pool in other games before? I know there's something akin to the party sheets in other games, and you could argue that stance is handled (in a very watered down way) by other mechanics in other games (all-out-attack, all-out-defense, etc.), but what game uses multiple dimensions of results in the dice pool?

The dice pool isn't really that much like Descent except that there are different colored dice which different symbols on them. The symbols on the WFRP dice measure both degree of success and failure AND ancillary effects like those triggered by boons, banes, comets, and stars. You can miss but still regain fatigue, for example. Coupled with the text of the cards, coupled with the stance (and therefore the side of the card and the type of dice you roll), and you're packing A LOT of information and player controlled choices into a single dice pool roll. That combined package has never been done in my experience before.

Later on, I think you mention that no one has copied the WFRP model, but have you seen the D&D 4E products announced for 2011? Almost all are boxed sets, almost all come with tokens and a new special deck of cards, including one called a FORTUNE deck, including another called the MADNESS deck. Does any of that sound familiar? I think the D&D 4E line-up for next year has been directly influenced by the success and the novel combination of ideas presented in WFRP3.

jeffeoff said:

Actually, I've seen many of the items mentioned used in board games as well as in RPGs. Not all in the same game, but these things are not new.

I mentioned in a previous post on another thread that DRAGON AGE RPG has a better dice mechanic that gives all of the finesse of this system with only using 3 six-sided dice. I won't repeat that here since you can always go back and read it by looking at my past posts in my profile.

Okay, D&D has actually been packaging boxed sets, using tokens and 3rd party products for years. You can't say that they are changing their business to convert over to the WFRP3 model. In fact, they have hardcover books out and dice that can be used without anything extra. To be honest, I'm actually not a huge fan of 4e after having played it for 6 months or so. Too many counters and doo-dads are necessary to play the game for my liking.

When it comes down to it, I'm not trying to trash WFRP3 either. I like what they're trying to do, but the only innovative process they've created in my opinion is to include all of this stuff in one box and force people to use it as part of the game. Other companies have had these as options, either offered by the company or through a 3rd party company. I actually, don't like the fact with WFRP3 that we never had the option of playing the game in a traditional style, but that is going away with the hardcover books. I will be happy by the release of the harcovers though.

I just disagree with the revolutionary leaps that people are claiming here.

Sorry, but no amount of convincing is going to change my mind here. I appreciate the fact that everyone would like to educate me otherwise, but this is all opinion and conjecture anyway. What's the point?

I'm a "played every edition of D&D since 1986'er", who has also seen Call of Cthulhu BRP, Ars Magica and many indie games more recently (In a Wicked Age [iAWA], Universalis, Primetime Adventures, Burning Wheel, Annalise, Reign and other ORE cames etc.).

I find WFRP 3rd Edition to be innovative. I'm not saying more so than Universalis, IAWA (the Dogs Engine) or the ORE engine for concepts, but certainly it has its own innovations. Some are the sort that once seen become "obvious" but weren't so obvious before seen. Like critical hit tables but hate rolling dice and then recording results, well, d'uh, here's a stack of cards - there you go. Are so tired of that player who never remembers how his bloody spell is supposed to work and has to pull out book every time, well now it's on a card facing him. Perhaps there are others who did this first but WFRP 3rd edition is my exposure to this and I'm loving it.

I love games like IAWA where "once you understand the engine, everything you need to know is staring you in the face so just play". WFRP is the most detailed game of that sort I have seen. Usually these "don't need to keep looking up stuff" games are stripped down, narrative etc. Now I love that, still wish I could play more IAWA for example and would trade half my WFRP sessions to do so. That said, love WFRP's ability to cram the detail of a D&D into this format.

Add to that the grim and gritty heritage of the WRFP gameverse and whoo hoo.

Now going back to the original question, until we see the Player and GM sets that come with all cards I don't know if we can compare. Eventually, yes buying those instead of core set might make sense. The problem with that is??

LeBlanc13 said:

I assumed you were open to having your opinion shifted in the first place. Could have just let us all know you were going to hold your own regardless of any evidence or thoughtfulness on behalf of your fellow forum readers. Maybe in the future, if you've got a firm determination to not change your mind, you shouldn't bother reading about what anyone else thinks or commenting on it; what's the point?

I'm sorry, but you're factually incorrect in some of your claims. You haven't seen the stance meter in another game, you haven't seen it linked to dice and the dice linked to different dimensions of result, further linked to the two sides of a given action. You've seen things that approximate parts of the equation, but that's not the same thing at all. You're skating around the issue by saying that WFRP just put it all together, but that's a meaningless statement. Every rpg puts some basic concepts together in order to create mechanics, whether the rpg is innovative or not. That's like saying "WFRP uses dice, that's not new at all!", but of course, that's just zooming out so far that you're willfully overlooking the things that WFRP does specifically that are actually new, inventive, and groundbreaking.

And if this isn't innovation, what is? Can't all of your criticisms be aimed at ANY game on the planet and still be just as (poorly) valid? "Well, it uses a bunch of stuff I've seen in other games."

The D&D 4E model, until recently was not about "boxed sets". It's all been separate products so far: books, tiles, miniatures, card packs. No boxed sets, at least not at all in the sense of the word we use traditionally for RPGs. Now what are they doing? Releasing tons of boxed sets next year, breaking from the last two years of product delivery in a fairly big way. Adding additional decks of cards to the game to pepper in more optional rules-these aren't power cards, mind you, these are new optional rules like Fortune and Madness to give D&D 4E another dimension for players who are into that. I'm not saying they are copying WFRP 3E 100% but I think it's likely they were inspired somewhat by it. Especially after hearing some the D&D staff talk so warmly about WFRP and what it did right and how it pushed the envelope.

LeBlanc13 said:

Says you. That's not a universal standard. I think you're moving the goal posts in order to save face instead of just conceding that, yeah, WFRP is actually quite innovative for an RPG.

RabidWookie said:

Man, I wish they'd released that extra information a little earlier. All manner of threads could have been avoided and concerns ameliorated sooner.

LeBlanc13 said:

Seriously? Based on what? WFRP has been doing great by every standard except the anecdotal "I don't see a lot of people playing it at my store" bit. It was the third highest selling RPG for the 2nd quarter of 2010, for example:

www.icv2.com/articles/news/18045.html

The FAQ specifically points out that WFRP has been very successful, with sold copies overwhelming initial expectations. Is FFG trying to expand the player base further? Of course. That in no way means the current model failed or was a "flop". If that was the case, maybe they would decided to move forward with the component-less version as the standard, but they haven't. They've declared the standard to be the way things have been since the beginning: boxes with cards and books and tokens.

Your declaration that the version you didn't like was a flop is just wishful thinking. I mean, what evidence do you have that it's a flop anyhow?

jeffeoff said:

All due respect Jeff, but perhaps you should look at taking your own advice here? After all you obviously have very firm ideas on this subject, and don't seem particularly open to changing your mind on the topic. Or perhaps, given that this is an open discussion forum, people can just exchange ideas with some level of basic civility, and without telling one another that they shouldn't bother posting their own opinions, since FFG hasn't obliged us all to make a solemn pledge to the Socratic method in order to discuss roleplaying games. Telling LeBlanc he shouldn't read or post on the forum is unnecessary, and frankly, pretty obnoxious.

Anyway, to return to the discussion that was underway: like one of the previous posters, I have found WFRP to be a real breath of fresh air, regardless of how revolutionary it is. I had played 1e as a teenager and was probably too young to fully appreciate the wonderfully grimy setting, but still had an awesome time with it. I think 2e was still (just about) active when I started playing RPGs again and our group was really into Dark Heresy and BRP Call of Cthulhu. Anyway, I really like percentile systems, particularly Dark Heresy, but I really couldn't face yet another game that involved rolling two d10s and listing huge numbers of talents and skills on a character sheet. 3e immediately appealed because it was obviously so different - the same thing which probably put off many 2e players, I assume - and the game has been incredibly good fun and really invigorated our gaming group...

It doesn't follow that I want every game I play following WFRP's route, or Emperor forbid a component version of Dark Heresy, but I think it is a fantastic fit with this setting and Jay and co deserve a huge amount of credit for what they've done. That they are also trying to appeal to a wider audience by offering the books I can only see as a good thing, now that it is clear that they remain committed to the original vision of the game.

One of the things that I really like to see is the degree to which the game's component system is evolving, with the little touches like Disease socketing into a talent slot, Zealot-type characters being able to attach an insanity card etc. I hope they continue to grow and develop the system in the manner they have, with boxed sets adding to every card deck, a new adventure, new fluff, a new game mechanic (Corruption, Disease) etc etc. I'm sure my players won't be happy until they have a pile of action cards 500-thick to choose from...

Monkus said:

I so agree about the basic civility. Let's take a deep breath, smile, and take things down a notch. I'm sorry I was so obnoxious. I could have handled myself better.

That said, and with all due respect, I think you've just done a similar thing, though.

I didn't tell anyone they shouldn't bother posting their own opinions, as you have incorrectly implied. I'm afraid you've read too much from what I actually said.

I didn't tell anyone not to read or post on the forum: I raised the question, rhetorically, as to the point of it if one comes into the discussion with a stated goal of holding firm to an opinion regardless of any points, valid or not, raised in said discussion. It was a question. It was meant to highlight the premise of a discussion.

Who said anything about a solemn pledge? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but are you dressing up my words to make it appear as if I said something I didn't? That would be unnecessary, and frankly, well, you know.

But further, you've deigned to take it upon yourself to tell me "but perhaps you should look at taking your own advice here? After all you obviously have very firm ideas on this subject, and don't seem particularly open to changing your mind on the topic". I'm sorry, but that seems as if you're admonishing me and repeating the crime yourself in the same line.

What gives you the idea that I'm not open to changing my mind on the topic? Why would you make that assumption? When I responded to LeBlanc, I wasn't assuming he wouldn't change his mindhe told us all very clearly that he wouldn't. But you just accused me of the same, based (I guess) on your assumptions about my character.

I suppose I can only assure you that I am open to shifting my opinion, and I often have. But what is that to you? I'm not the one who stated that nothing is going to change my mind.

jeffeoff said:

Jeff, anything that was inferred was because of the whole tone of your message, or rather the four messages in a row that you directed at a single person. If you are in fact, reasonable, open-minded and open to multiple points of view, then I suggest you post in a way that reflects that, rather than in a confrontational manner that directly implies people with a different opinion needn't bother voicing them.

So, to your question ''why would you make that assumption', well because someone who is open to having their mind changed on a topic usually doesn't adopt the aggressive, confrontational stance and polemical style that you did. I can assure you that I'm not making any deeper assumptions about you, merely responding to what you have written, in the hope that an interesting discussion can be kept civil despite differences of opinion. No ulterior motive or desire to besmirch your character.

Monkus said:

Fair enough.

I don't like coming off as "that guy" who is hard-line, bitter and won't budge. I don't think I'm actually that way, but I can see that my posts didn't exactly help convey me otherwise.

A technicality: I think one of those four messages was to the original point of the topic and not related at all to LeBlanc.

It sort of happened that LeBlanc mentioned a message earlier where he says he talked about Dragon Age having a multi-dimensional mechanic for dice and I was looking for that. I was interested in reading about that because it seemed interesting and I'm not familiar with DA. What I've seen of it made it look very so-so, but I haven't seen much. Certainly not enough to make a fair judgment about.

In the process of looking for that message, I read all of LeBlanc's messages in this thread that I hadn't read or had forgot about and saw a few things that I wanted to respond to. They weren't all related, at least not directly, but yes, I agree the tone was a bit energetic (polemic is a bit strong) and the rapid repetition of messages to one guy looks more atagonistic than I intended.

I do want to keep things civil and I'm really not trying to troll or start a fight. I do feel that you sort of escalated things a bit by accusing me of some things that I think were a little uncalled for. I felt a bit nudged because I thought you were painting my words in the worst light possible, not even giving me the benefit of the doubt.

And LeBlanc, I'm sorry I vented at you when really I was getting a bit exhausted with some of the arguments we've seen repeatedly from the doomsayers, without any real ammo (facts) to back it up: "the game is a flop", for example. "The hardbacks are an insult to people who bought the core set", "the hardbacks are proof that the original model failed", etc. Some of the other points are certainly more subjective and perhaps it was imprudent to argue about how "revolutionary" or not the game is. It's the sort of thing where anyone can choose to believe whatever they wish, and once someone declares they are not open to shifting their opinion, the discussion should probably move on.

I prefer to believe that exuberant optimism (while not always a great thing) and giving the benefit-of-the-doubt are far preferable to stalwart negativity and resentment, especially if the reasons supplied for the negativity are backed up chiefly by conjecture and worst case scenario assumptions.

It's all good. Please don't read any unnecessary negative emotion to the tone of my messages if it can be helped. I'm not hammering at the keyboard, frothing at the mouth, eyes boiling because I can't make everyone on the internet agree with me

LeBlanc13 said:

The Dragon Age mechanic is 3d6 + stat vs. difficulty, with one of the dice (the "Dragon Die") arbitrarily representing how well you succeeded. The WFRP3 system uses custom dice that tell you what aspect of your action led to the success (natural ability, training, luck, disposition, etc.) based on the composition of each individual attempt while also giving multifaceted results. Your comparison is baffling; Dragon Age offers none of the mechanical nuance of WFRP3, and on what basis do you consider the Dragon Age mechanic "bettter"?

jeffeoff said:

My apologies for that, not my intent at all. I guess neither of us came off as intended.

RabidWookie said:

Opinion. Mine. Deal with it! I like it better.

Isn't most of the stuff stated on here opinion? Generally, I try not to accuse and nay say others ideas. I'm just trying to state my point. Agree with it or not, but it's really funny when someone tries to tell me my opinion is wrong. It's an opinion. That's all. And I do feel the DragonAge dice mechanic is just as nuanced. It's just simpler, which apparently makes it worse in your opinion. See how I'm not trying to prove you wrong? Refreshing isn't it?

@Jeffeoff:

TS'all good man! Occasionally I get a bit heated in my responses too. My statement about revolutionary products being a flop was intended to be an "If/Then" statement. I wasn't lumping WFRP3 in there yet. Just saying a revolution that isn't successful will turn out to be a flop. If my intention was read otherwise, I apologize.

In fact, since you read some of my other posts, you can see that I have recently just got back my WFRP3 stuff and i'm looking for a group to play so I can finally get some playing in. I'm also looking forward to the hardcover books too.

When it comes down to it, I like this system. It just irks me when a roleplaying game is treated as the 'second coming'.

It's just a game after all. Games don't start revolutions, but they can provide some innovations. I think revolutionary is a strong term that I'm not comfortable applying to this game.

LeBlanc13 said:

Yes, we are in the time where smartphones became even more simpler in usage by radically killing useless functions and features, but in rpgs obviously there are still people which thinks "complex is always better than simple". Godthanks I have discovered simple to use Savage Worlds as ruleset for WFRP.

Savage Worlds is the iphone of the roleplaying genre!

superklaus said:

Yes I had this as well, you initially thinks it’s great an you use it for everything then you realize the more you use it it's not that great and go back your old system.

Amketch said:

well this experience seems to be far away from me, I am playing it since more 2 years and there is no sign of weakening.

No offense, but maybe, if you converted back, you played it not correctly? Because one observation the last years was that in contrary to other rulesets SW is not very tolerant to user mistakes or handwaving playing styles. The system is designed extremely tight and if you forget or misinterprete one core rule during play the whole unique experience is changing. (eg. its very easy to misinterprete the wound and soaking mechanics, even for experienced players) Additionally the game system is not for people which hate mini usage. So to play it correctly and for fullest effect you have to love and use minis/counters/coins during combat.

superklaus said:

I now see that I misunderstood your I phone comment completely, I should have read the whole post.

As I said we initially enjoyed it greatly, it just seemed so soulless in the end. Just because you have found it to be the ultimate system for you doesn’t mean everyone will. I sorry but the “If you don’t like it you must be playing it wrong” argument is offensive, saying no offence first does not make it any less so. I just want different things from a rules system than you obviously.

LeBlanc13 said:

I kind of agree with you on that. I guess when humans get a lot of pleasure out of something we're prone to hyperbole, to proselytize to others and become rather defensive when others appear to be gainsaying our position.

In what other respects does WFRP resemble religion? Tithing? With that list of future releases, along with forthcoming 40k goodness, I may well have to set aside 10% of my income..

For me, the question of whether WFRP is revolutionary with respect to the rest of the RPG industry is largely irrelevant. The game has been a revelation to me and my group. I think it has been the first game we have played at length where the system isn't simply at service to the setting, and trying to be as unobtrusive and 'serviceable' as possible, but actively adds something to the game and the interaction between GM and player. Having a multidimensional dice mechanic is just the beginning of that. I didn't like the component-heavy system at first, but actual play has shown me just how much it can aid immersion around the table

If 'all politics are personal', then perhaps all revolutions are too...