monkeylite said:

Ha ha ha...

Emirikol said:

The changes made by 2E were fairly small - with the exception of the magic system, most of the changes were minor changes to fix a few flaws in the original system. The game wasn't given a new edition because the original was horrible. The game did need to be brought into line with the current WFB fluff (the fluff that their target audience was familiar with), but the main reason to release a new edition is marketting. The fact is that new editions sell better than old ones. Trying to sell an old game to a new audience is harder than selling a completely new edition.

The release schedule was actually extremely impressive, with a new release every month or so initially. There was also some pretty impressive stuff in there - the ToS, ToC and CotHR are some of my favourite products for any edition of WFRP. As for 'adult content', I'm not sure what there was in v1 that was removed from v2, but I mostly saw the fluff as interchangeable anyway, so I may simply not have noticed.

macd21 said:

Nice put.

Though 2nd had the one of the best sourcebooks of rpg ever. The MonsterBook ( however this was called).

With the entries:

• Public view
• Schoolar view
• some Enemy view
• and in their own words ("braaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnns" - unnamed zombie)

WK

The main problem with v1's rules (objectively speaking) is that they were very badly organized. The rest is a matter of opinion. Second edition solved the organization problem by removing most of the rules altogether, except for combat (which received a set of D20-like actions) and spellcasting (which got a WFB-like treatment). v1's Skills were divided into Skills and Talents which mostly confer D20-like numeric modifiers, instead of unique effects as per v1. In v3, the combat rules have become even more detailed, and non-combat rules pushed further into the realm of handwavium.

So I guess the answer is that WFRP v1 tried to be a more sandboxy game than AD&D, with lots of stuff to do besides combat. When GW finally decided to resurrect the line, they wanted a more combat-focused game that adhered more closely to iconic WFB imagery.

Herr Arnulfe said:

Or... not. A unified skill system doesn't mean that non-combat systems recieve less attention, it's just good game design. IMO v2 provided far more support for non-combat characters than v1, with actual realistic options for a non-combat character beyond the first career. A character could focus on social, investigative or knowledge based advancement, becoming specialised in something other than combat, something that wasn't really possible in v1. However it still limited non-combat activities to basic success-fail rolls, something that v3 tries to address to give non-combat characters more to do.

I see each successive edition recognising the importance of both combat and non-combat actions. v2 worked with what v1 had and tried to improve both areas. v3 threw the old rules out the window, but continued to recognise the importance of both to the game. Combat has to be fast, vicious and gritty, but non-combat characters have to be able to contribute as well.

macd21 said:

You can have a unified skill system that also gives attention to non-combat skills, beyond a one-line blurb stating the obvious. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive. There are also many other indicators of a game's intended focus. For example, the previous two line managers for WFRP (James Wallis and Rob Schwalb) have gone on record saying that trading isn't an important part of WFRP. Meanwhile the original v1 gazetteers included Trade Constants for each settlement. v2 and v3 have included a progressively higher percentage of combat-oriented careers. Published v1 adventures were also lighter on combat encounters overall than v2/v3 adventures.

zombieneighbours said:

But that doesn't make it better . I'm one of those players who hardly read any WFB stuff/fluff. Are there a lot of WFRP players (whatever edition) who have next to no knowledge or experience of WFB?

heptat said:

Of course. Sometimes the WFB books are the only sources of material about a certain aspect of the world. And if you dont want to repeat the old boring story "catch the imperial cultist" again and again in your games, you have to include more exotic places and people. (like Naggaroth or Ulthuan for example)

Back to topic:

2nd edition was just a blown up 1st edition. The rules were more fine-grained with 5% steps instead of 10%. They were more "balanced" (which is of course senseless in a game which isnt about "balancing" at all) and they introduced an additional and needless layer of complexity because of the new d20 like cathegory of talents. The designer of 2nd was Green Ronin (a company which was big in creating d20 booklets, which explains alot about this questionable design decision. But 2nd edition didnt adress the big principal problems of the 1st edtion ruleset - the existance of stat cap.

In 1st edition GW seemed to be obsessed to cap stats to 10, in order to sync the rpg system with WFB. So a 1st edition dragon had a ridicolous SB of 7(0) and a 2nd edition dragon had the same ridicolous SB of 65 (stat cap was 100 for even the biggest of demons in 2nd edition), which isnt much more than the some points over a creature like a well trained human or orc, which progressed a linear way during their career. This led to the problem that you could not give a healthy amount of attacks to a big creature like a giant, orgre or dragon because with its "low" strength it could not make enough damage to challenge even a well trained human. So the (bad) solution was to give them a ridicolous amount of attacks to increase their damage potential and make them as dangerous as they should be. In the end a dragon had up to some 6 attacks PER round, a giant up to 5 and an ogre up to 3. Of course this destroys every reasonable description (at least if someone like authentic and realistic gameplay and not just some cheesy odd abstractions) i called this whole large monster classes "ninja-giants" because very fast and very many attacks for such big creatures are more a kind of ninja combat.

There was nothing wrong with the magic system in 1st edition, and 2nd editon didnt improve it. Mages became colored (wft?) and divided in factions (maybe the designers played to much WoD or ars magica back in the days) and they get rid of the elementalist which I didnt like at all because it stole the game a playing ground and option - but the new "warp-only" policy of GW maybe dont allow elemental planes and elemental creatures anymore. Additonally I am suspicious about unlimited spellcasting without expenditure of magic points. Sounded (and still sounds) like a nod to powergamers and munchkins to me. Magic points remains the true regulatory tool to limit the amount of spells you can cast in a row. So I was not very convinced of the new unlimited spellcasting.

On the positive side of 2nd editon, as some here already mentioned BI did some of the best sourcebooks ever for rpgs. Like the bestiary (its georgeous from the content, but bad organized) the kislev sourcebook and the bretonia books. But 1st edition had also its share of excellent source books like the Marienburg - Sold down the river and Dwarf Stone and Steel from Mad Alfred.

So I would say that the rule reboot to 2nd edition was not necessary, because it improved not much. But for WFRP fluff it was a great move because of the additional sourcebooks which appeared.

Hm..did I forget anything? Ah, yes...

In my opinion.

superklaus said:

Wierdly, out of the many interesting and valid points you make, this is the one I need to react too, simply because I could not disagree more. I'm not sure if 2ed got the balance right, but I so preferred the concept of you can use magic as much as you like, but each and every time you are risking your body, mind & soul. As opposed to "I can only cast 4 spells a day". I see the magic point concept/ times-per-day firmly rooted in the early RPGs roots of 70's wargaming, and was glad to see a more concept-based replacement.

For me, the contextural side of "magic" has always been important. So i liked 2nd ed becuase it did not stop you doing - just made it harder and more dangerous (hence character justification and "roleplaying" to decide if it was warranted!)

I have always hated the once a day / x times a moon / etc approach because that is too subjective. How do GM's delineate things like days , hours and minutes when one event / actions could be in game terms indefinate and in play terms .... indefinate!

I like a system that says "the more you do this, the harder / more dangerous it becomes" with the reciprocal being that you act "conservatively" and get a good nights sleep you are in a good position - but act rashly and "draw" too much power and abuse it - you're on a slippery path to the witch hunters attention.

I liked 2ed because it did not limit things to a hypothetical / game session finity. I have played too many systems to recount, but first played WHFRP 1ed in the early 90's, and I have to say that the whole concept just set me on fire. I love it! The way magic is dealt with in 2ed struck a cord as that is how I "feel" it should be done - and BI were doing a good job of expanding this into hedge / ice / rune / etc.

I liked 1ed becauce as an individual you could choose where you were going with "spell" selection. A combination of both for me would be .... magic (sorry ... had to say it, and slap me over the head with a wet fish for that BAD pun).

I know that this is my opinion - but for me it works. FFG and 3rd ed have just started but we are getting hints at all sorts of "clandestine" magic's, so I am looking forward to being 're-educated' in my thinking (I have not got WoM yet).

Magic is ... and should be ... dangerous. Rules that back this up should be clean, defined, and open.

Just my POV. I am sorry if I have offended, but no harm was intended.

Alp

I second ALP's response.

I hate systems that restrict casting of spells for no better reason than to "balance" the game. Frankly, I like the path that 4th edition D&D took by giving out spells with unlimited castings and restricting more powerful spells to once per encounter or once per day. That fits a little better.

The WFRP 2nd rules, by far are better than the D&D 4th rules though. I find with Dark Heresy games and with WFRP 2nd edition, spell casters think long and hard about casting spells for fear of the reprecussions of miscasting. Perils of the warp and miscasts really go a long way to balance things. If the party is in trouble and their spell caster suddenly becomes possessed it won't go well. The random factor in WFRP and DH really help to enforce a sense of danger in casting that just isn't there in other systems I've seen.

CaffeineBoy said:

WFRP the alternative? Back in what day? I think most of the time it was Shadowrun or WoD that were the big alternatives. At the moment WFRP seems to be the big alternative to D&D and Pathfinder, but it wasn't always like that.

Don't forget that from a publishing point of view, WFRP had spent some years completely dead, with life support being provided entirely by the fan community. Hogshead proved that there was still commercial interest in it (maybe because the community got more and more organized because of the rise of internet). And suddenly GW is faced with a popular product that they technically own, but is based on a completely obsolete and since rewritten version of their setting.

Hogshead did a bit to bring WFRP back in line with WFB (Realm Of Sorcery, mainly), but a more thorough rewrite of the background required a new setting. I wouldn't be surprised if GW had a big voice in the need for a new version.

So from GW's point of view, the background was wrong, and from players' point of view, the system was too buggy and unbalanced. Fix the bugs and unbalance, and you can get players to accept the new background, which is what happened.

CaffeineBoy said:

And the one that was published was definitely not the one that was originally promised. I believe Ken Rolston's older RoS manuscript is also floating around the Net somewhere.

mcv said:

From my recollection, WFRP was definitely the alternative to D&D in the second half of the 80s in the UK.

monkeylite said:

It was the best alternative for "us", anyway. Back in the day, when I lived near a FLGS people would ask what we played, and when I told them "Warhammer" they most common reaction was "Brutal". So, no not for everyone.

Honestly, If WFRP had not come along, I would have given up on RPGs (except for an occasional game of Paranoia). I was sick of D&D dungeon crawls, RQII was to "Crunchy"/ and creating a campaign world required more effort then I was willing to put in. The other options were limited, mostly D&D clones (iirc WW/WoD & Shadowrun didn't even exist at the time,).

As for what issues it had? a few, but none were "game breaking", and most that others point out never were there for us. Our TEW campaign was the longest campaign I ever ran, lasting 10+ years, on again/off again gaming.

Having played through a V1 game just before 3 was released, they were a bit more obvious by todays measure.

One of the problems with WFRP earlier editions was GamesWorkshops refusal to let go of the leash on ANY of their products. They have made some of the best skirmish games and board games around, but when they discontinue them so they can focus on the big boys these "lesser" products are left to languish. Thankfully they decided to turn over the licensing of their RPGs to a company that could put some serious effort into them with existing product lines to keep them afloat. FFG has resurrected GW's products and really invigorated them with their staunch support of the IP.

Dark Heresy was about to be canceled on another one of GW's experimental tangents. They create something great and then cancel it because it doesn't bring in the cash that WFB and W40k do. It annoys me that this company has such talented game developers that give up on games too quickly because they want to focus on those two tabletop games.

Anyway, I think the RPG franchises for Warhammer and 40k are in good hands now. Hopefully they'll continue running for a VERY long time.

mcv said:

Ahem... GET OFF MY LAWN, you whippersnapper!

I was indeed talking about the end of the '80s. WFRP was originally released in '86 while Shadowrun didn't hit until '89 IIRC and I *know* the original Vampire didn't come out until the '90s. Right before Magic: the Gathering killed roleplaying and took its stuff. Now, '86-'89 doesn't *seem* like a big stretch in retrospect, but at the time WFRP was the only (big) game in town if you wanted fantasy and didn't want BRP or D&D.

LeBlanc13 said:

*Shrug* They know where the money is. They produce some great games, but the small ones tend to be niche and are only sufficiently profitable for a short amount of time before sales plummet. I think that they might have liked to continue producing DH (it was a brand new game with lots of life left in it), but that it was too difficult to untangle it from BI, which (as a whole) wasn't making enough money to maintain. Thankfully FFG saw the potential in the game (and the other licences) and picked them up

Leblanc is right. Not being much of a wargamer, I find myself experiencing a bit of sadness when I enter a GW store, each time thinking: with great IP's like these, there could be so much more interesting stuff here than *just* a lot of miniatures, paint and army books.

It's been said before by many others, but I'll say it again:

bring back Warhammer Quest.

Maybe that's just nostalgia talking but I love that game and it could use an update

monkeylite said:

yep, i agree it was. While RuneQuest was also designed als alternative approach to that what DnD saw as roleplaying the differences between DnD and RQ has been rather on the side of mechanics and combat. Also the modules themselves for RQ have been more in line with (some of the better) DnD modules. So this left WFRP1 for those who wanted to concentrate on story. I would even say that WFRP1 with its (for those days) innovative complex TEW camapaign was the first alternative for those who where in roleplaying and storytelling and not in dungeon crawl rollplaying. WoD and Shadowrun came later (in around ´90-92) , WFRP was first.

CaffeineBoy said:

Ahem... GET OFF MY LAWN, you whippersnapper!

I was indeed talking about the end of the '80s. WFRP was originally released in '86 while Shadowrun didn't hit until '89 IIRC and I *know* the original Vampire didn't come out until the '90s. Right before Magic: the Gathering killed roleplaying and took its stuff. Now, '86-'89 doesn't *seem* like a big stretch in retrospect, but at the time WFRP was the only (big) game in town if you wanted fantasy and didn't want BRP or D&D.

Fair enough. That's also the period when I played WFRP, but I've never been under the impression that it was the only real alternative to D&D. GURPS quickly picked up in my area, and was soon quite a bit bigger than WFRP. And for those who wanted something (even) less wimpy than WFRP, there was always Call of Cthulhu.

And articles I read in magazines often references RQ and Rifts and stuff like that. But maybe it's different because I didn't live in the UK. It's obvious that a local game will do better at home than abroad.

CaffeineBoy said:

Other then the fact there was MERP, Role Master, RuneQuest, Fantasy Hero and Palladium Fantasy. In my region Palladium Fantasy and Rolemaster were the big alternates. Though WFRP 1E was there as well.

Ludlov Thadwin of Sevenpiecks said:

Quoted for truth.

Come on FFG you have the board game rights for this IP, do it. Do it.

Oh, and Blood Bowl.

And Chainsaw Warrior, erm, maybe not.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Fair enough. I had discounted MERP/RM and Palladium 'cause we never played them. I neglected Fantasy Hero 'cause... I guess I blocked it out. Post traumatic stress. Statting out a complete fantasy world from the guidelines in that book possible, fun even, but DANG it was exhausting.

Anywho, the scene was *far* more localized back then. There was no FFG Forum or RPGnet to help gamers communicate. We were at the mercy of whatever our FLGSes chose to stock. Most of that time for me was spent in places where WFB was the primary fantasy interest, so WFRP just seemed like a bigger deal than it probably was around the globe.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Warhammer Quest would be cool to see redone, but Dungeonquest is a nice filler for that. They are putting out a Blood Bowl card game which I'm looking forward to. But as a huge Blood Bowl fan and NAF member the general concensus is that Blood Bowl is perfectly fine in the hands it currently resides. While it would be cool to see a huge commercial resurgence of the game. We don't want a new version of the game the LRB format is perfect. So unless GW wants to relenquish the rights to the current game we are happy with it as it is.

Kryyst said:

Blood Bowl currently is in a good place. They have a fair number of teams. The only complaint I have is some of the teams are REALLY outdated models from the late 80's and early 90's style of miniatures. Low detail in wonky poses.

If they could do with the skaven, woodelves, halflings and goblins what they did with some of the other teams for new sculpts, I'd bee very happy.

Otherwise. Blood Bowl is a really solid game!