Do I have a failing memory, or were beastmen not as numerous in 1st edition, as they are in 3rd? (I skip 2nd, as that had chaos everywhere...)

I'm soon to run "A day late", "An Eye" and "Storm", and in everyone of them there's beastmen and no bandits...

Should I just give in, and introduce my PC's to a world where beastmen populate every place with more than 3 trees?

I really prefered that beastmen where only living in the deep deep forests in the northen part of the Empire. And the main danger in wilderness came from bandits, and maybe once in a blue moon some mutant, beastmen is just to much.

"A day late" the beastmen can easially be substituted with bandits. "An eye" it gets a bit more complicated, seeing as the beastmen are drawn to the painting, while bandits would not be drawn to it. The bandit leader (and maybe one or two more) could be mutants in disguise, who feel called to it. In "Storm" it's fine with the beastmen really, also helps that it gets spiced up with goblins.

But am I making to much fuss about my aversion towards how common chaotic creatures are? Maybe because I come from playing TEW, where the PC's hardly see chaotic beasts, and if so in small numbers.

No, I dont think you are alone, at least I am with you on this one. It does seem like there are a whole lot more creatures spawned of chaos running amok in the Old World in this edition, so far anyway, and without a proper entry for bandits or the like in the Tome of Adventure it makes it feel as if common opponents from early WHFRP are missing. I hope we see more bandit type encounters in Edge of Night or other offical campaigns in the future. But for now I think you are dead on in saying that there seems that creatures of chaos are seemingly too prolific in the publishd material available right now.

Yes agreed. I like to focus on urban encounters for a good while before introducing anything monstrous and to emphasize the contrast of town to wilderness.

Normally I would of swapped out the beastmen from A Day Late, but on this occasion my new players would of found it more horrific to be killing humans. Once they are desensitized to killing beastlies I'll have them garroting poor folk in not time though >8P. I plan to Drop the undead and maybe the orcs from TGS so that the Beastmen from Eye for an Eye, TGS etc are all part of an unusual surge in Beastfolk in the area.

Part of the point/issue is that the current setting timeline is just before a major Chaos invasion. So, a large increase in Chaos activity, as Beastmen and cults infiltrate in preparation for the coming war. So, yes, the very setting means there are more minions of chaos around for the PCs to stumble onto.

Okay, glad I'm not the only one. I do though follow and understand the idea that we're close to Storm of Chaos, but my problem is that I'm trying to keep it as close to 1st edition as possible. I don't like SoC.

I wanted the PC's introduction with beastmen be a very very frightfull experience ("You hear something sounding like a moose braying, answered by other moose/cattle like brayings, and then the sound of cloves beating against the ground, as it comes closer and closer..."), and not a "Yes like any respecting village we TO have beastmen living in our forest, please don't kill them, as we've grown fond of them..."

BUT! I do follow the idea of simply saying that this area has an unusual high activity of Chaos, and maybe having the Nexus in TGS be the source.

I like "grey" zone enemies, thus I like enemies to be a greedy nobleman, a group of soldiers (who after the destruction of a goblin/orc tribe has no more work to do "Sorry, we don't need your service anymore") who rob a local village and outlying farms, the Witch Hunter who thinks an entire village is tainted with Chaos, etc... I do of course also like to throw in a mutant, necromancer, cultists, and direct frontal chaotic beasts, but I want these encounters to be something the players rarely see, so when they see it they can act both frightened and disgusted.

Players do not hesitate killing a beastman, mutant, cultist, undead, necromancer etc... the fun roleplaying acts comes from wether or not to kill 3 bandits, who's only trying to feed their family, after they've all been thrown out of town due to some merchant who tore down their houses to make room for more warehouses.

Guess I have some work to do

It's just an unusual coincidence that there are so many in the first few adventures.

A Day Late was released purely as a demo adventure. I think the reason that Beastmen were used is so that it could tie in to An Eye for an Eye.

In an Eye for an Eye it is made clear that the beastmen attack was unusual. They hadn't been a problem for years (was it centuries?).

An in tGS they are just one enemy of many, stirred up by the lightning stones.

That said, beastmen were certainly a huge threat in v1. The corebook emphasised that every coaching inn, farm and village was fortified against beastmen attacks. The intro adventure from the enemy within starts with a beastman attack on a coach.

There doesn't seem to be any mention of beastmen in the Edge of Night (that we know of), probably won't be in BFP. I don't think it's really an issue.

macd21 said:

While I agree with your general point, it's worth mentioning that the coach in TEW is attacked by mutants, not by beastmen. Also, in Old World Buildings in the WFRP1 corebook, coaching inns are fortified against "rampaging mercenaries or goblins" and villages against threats ranging "from huge bears to goblinoids and even Chaos Beastmen" (the 'even' rather suggesting that Beastmen are more unusual). Farmsteads mention no specific foes that I noticed. Pedantic, I know.

It would be good to see the Beastmen developed further - perhaps as part of an Into The Wood supplements focusing on the deep forests of the Empire - but I suppose there is a risk of them becoming as common as Skaven.

Cheers

Sparrow

It's pretty much: Demo - Beastmen; Eye - Beastmen/Cultists & Daemon; GS - Beastmen, Undead, Goblins, Mad Wizards

So yes, a lot of beasties. Edge of Night so far seems Beastman-free.

Not that I think this is how FFG is setting it up but I like a progression (for new to the Old World Players such as mine) of using the "obvious evil" first and then introducting the "less obvious, grayer" things.

- you fight capital M-monsters like beastmen and goblins, get some hints of connections to people (what, Foaldeath's mother was who???)

- you fight mad undead necromancers (oh evil people, what becomes of them, over the top evil ones, okay)

yes Chaos bad, must be destroyed, no mercy to these....

- C-cultists, people (with odd mutation) serving ruinous powers, summoning daemons, okay no argument with the witchhunter here,

Then we see desperate bandits trying to feed families, con artists cheating crime lords etc., mutants just trying to get by and perhaps having a net positive effect locally (at least for now).

Rob

PS - love the idea of "Into the Woods" supplements.

.... if you go into the woods today, you're in for a big surprise

valvorik said:

I really hope you're right, and it's not just an "attempt" to avoid handling the more complex ways humans can and do behave.

It's, in my world, just to easy to have a monster be the villian, because you have no sympathy with monsters. When the villian starts becomming humans with feelings of guilt and with motives ranging above "Just kill everything I see, or corrupt everyone", then it starts to get very interesting.

I remember one who wrote a single encounter for 2nd edition, where the PC's came across a village filled with undead who all did what normal people did... they farmed the land (using their undead horses), they ate food which just went through their bones and splattered on the floor to rot there, etc... They then came across the necromancer who did it, only to find out that his motive had only been to save his terminally ill family, so he could be with them. In turn he'd cursed the whole village, but he'd gone so crazy that he lived in a dream world where they, to him, were still alive. The PC's now had a tough choice, kill him (which would break the spell and kill all villagers), or let him live and really remain harmless.

This was simply great! Because it was evil/wrong, but the PC's could sympathize with him! PC's don't sympathize with Foalgarth, they help him to serve a greater purpose, not because they in any way like him. PC's don't have any reason not to kill Mourn, or that goblin, or the wizard for that matter! (since letting him live will drown the entire village)

In TEW my PC's let Steinhägger live, because he really had no clue which great powers he was toying with, he was a pawn in Teugens game (who in turn was another pawn...). They're not likely to start slaugthering the villages at Witgenstein either, even though they're clearly chaos tainted, they do no harm (apart from being really really anoying!).

And then now... In "An Eye", the PC's should really kill every single bad guy, there's no "greys", no one helps unwittingly. In TGS the PC's will either kill or turn in the Holz family, the beastmen are pure enemies, the goblins are, the wizard is, the undead are, really only the hafling is a "grey" one, where the choice is wether to accuse her of being a careless thief (one of the better things in TGS).

Besides, TGS tells us that after the players have killed Izka, they should get going soonish, because several Dozens! of beastmen are heading their way to determin who should be new leader. Several dozens??? Why didn't Izka just assault Stormdorf??? One quick night raid (pouring rain makes spotting them from affar impossible), and you'd wipe the entire village. Would have had a much more profound effect, if killing Izka and some of the beastmen had left the tribe crippled, and then Foalgarth would remain leader nothing. And also give the players the chance of double-crossing Foalgarth and then have him see the error in trying to usurp Izka, or even have him smile when he died, knowing that the Holz would be safe forever from that day, even if he should die.

To me "Epic Heroes" go slay monsters, they fight of demons, they rip apart cultist groups, but I find that utterly boring. Those heroes are meant to be read about, it's Sigmar, or Magnus, it's not Regnar "Ratcatcher" Dürzburg... What he does is venture into the world, and become a hero of his own, by making TOUGH choices! It's not a tough choice to kill a demon, it's hard, but the choice is not tough. It's a tough choice to throw yourself infront a Witch Hunter bend on burning the old weird woman who "heals" people using weird herbs, beating him in combat is then hard...

Thanks for the input from all of you btw. I know it looks like I've allready made up my mind about it, but it really helps sharing thoughts like this

James Sparrow said:

I believe that in TEW, the distinction between mutants and beastmen is a bit fuzzier than it is nowadays. Didn't DotR start with an attack of beastmen that looked more like mutants with a few beastly features (like tentacle boy)? Maybe there's a sliding scale between mutants and beastmen, depending on how much humanity they still have left.

Spivo said:

In tGS you can choose to let the Holtzes off free. You also need to decide whether to kill Foaldeath or work with him. What do you do with Waltrout, the village idiot and pawn of a necromancer? What do you do if you find out about Madriga's murder?

Yes, there are some pretty obvious enemies, but the adventure isn't as black and white as you portray, there are plenty of greys.

Spivo said:

Er, that's the entire point.... Izka wants to launch a night raid that will slaughter Stormdorf. Foaldeath has managed to delay him until now, but he knows that he's run out of time.

On a mechanical note for a second. One of the things I have noticed while running WHFRP 3e is that it seems more complicated to simply throw together a simple adversaries like a bounty hunter. I realize you can use action cards for foes, but from whats in the Tome of adventure for human NPC's thier actions seem very specific as compared to things like beastmen. Anyway my point is that I think that the mechanics running monsters and npc's tend to feel, to me, very restrictive in what I can create on the fly and for me that makes the options provided more readily available and considering the 1e book had a lot more ready made foes and the system was easier to make human npcs on the fly, this edition is feeling (IMO) more bias towards creatures of chaos. Im sure there will be a fix with the creature book comming out soon but for now I think thats why its giving off that chaos everywhere vibe.

Yeah at the first i was annoyed too by the heavy presence of beastmen in the trio "day late"- "Eye 4a Eye" - "lesser evil" but after running the first sessions around the same village near Grunwald and developping a strong sense of "there were years we havent seen a single beastman, but in the last weeks the beastmen attacks have multiplied" the players cold at least discover that was the chaos painting drawing them near, making cultists at Grunwald lodge looking even more dangerous to the empire. Also, the beastmen have beated so badly my pc that now they are pretty scared just by the word "brastmen", as should it truly be whit those beasts!

As for the "grey" zone, there are many in these games, ansdall are typical warhammish, so if u really love them u can try to emphathize this aspects as a GM: apart from those mentioned before, the players maybe had a chance to simpatize whit grunwals staff members, and then they have to slaughter them, even if they was just fooled by the steward! Also choosing to do what foaldeath asks could be a pretty hard choice for some carrers, like priest of sigmar...u should just have to state clearly that he's not human at all!

valvorik said:

Thanks. When you think about it, it's a logical supplement. The vast majority of the Empire is forerested, and most settlements, roads and rivers are effectively engulfed by it. There are also numerous named forests of note. In a supplement focusing on forests, you can deal with Wood Elves, Beastmen and Goblins (although the latter would be morely likely to turn up in a goblinoid supplement). You've got lost settlements, forgotten temples and shrines, magical pools, nature spirits, and all sorts of monsters.

In fact, it would make a good three book supplement: Woods Elves (a culture book), Beastmen and Other Forest Creatures (a focused bestiary, with background on Beastmen), and Forests of the Empire (a guide to the larger named forests, plus additional generic forest locations).

Cheers

Sparrow

mcv said:

Well, it's a Beastmen with mutations and three mutants. The art, however, does make the Beastman (the one with tentacles) look more human than beast, and the mutants more beast than human. I think you make a fair point, though - the background material does say in various places that when people develop mutations they often flee and end up falling in with Beastmen. Similarly, abandoned child and baby mutants are said to get found and adopted by Beastmen. I seem to remember reading, though, that mutants are often a weaker, servant caste within Beastman culture.

I must admit that I tend to visualise the average Beastman as a goat-headed, hairy humanoid with hooves and horns, but obviously it's hard to generalise about such warped monsters.

Cheers

Sparrow

James Sparrow said:

The GW mini sculptors manage it just fine.

Again thanks for the feedback, very constructive and helpfull.

I agree, yes the players do have some choices regarding "grey" npc's in TGS. I must also remember to add, that I really like the scenarios/campaign FFG has produced, very much indeed. I just thought the beastman theme was a big to thick.

Think I'll introduce my PC's to the area, by letting them travel there from Altdorf, or Bögenhafen, and then meet a family moving by wagon towards them. They'll warn them of the human like beasts plundering in the area, the family, who's lost their farm/creatures to an attack, will be in a great hurry to leave the area completely.

Thus I'll keep this problem local, and the destruction of the painting and Nexus will slowly make the beastmen vacate the area again.

monkeylite said:

True, but they're producing standardised army units. Assuming that Beastman culture operates at more than just the warband level, there could be room for more variation.

Cheers

Sparrow

James Sparrow said:

The Warhammer concept of beastmen has changed since 1st edition. Back then every beastman was heavily mutated - they all tended to have tentacles, extra heads, legs growing out of their ears etc. Since then beastmen have become to be seen as a 'stable' mutation. There are still sometimes ones with mutations, but not every single one of them.

"PC's will either kill or turn in the Holz family"

It's interesting you say that - when I ran this part of the adventure this is what I thought as well. Then my players turn around understand why the Holz's were doing what they were doing, even if they didn't agree with it, and decided to leave them alone, with the promise (which the players didn't really believe) that they would stop if the player helped Foaldeath.

Players - I give up trying to guess what they're going to do.

My problem with TGS isn't the monsters, or combat orientation or any of those other things others have brought up. I'm struggling keeping the players there - they managed to retrieve the merchant's ring and their basic thoughts are 'we have what we came for and we don't really want to be around for those things the priest is 'seeing' so let's get out of here'.

I'm working really hard to keep them in Stormdorf without it seeming like I'm railroading the players....

macd21 said:

macd21 said:

The WFRP1 rulebook certainly says that Beastmen vary in appearance, don't breed true and are subject to mutation, but at the same time it also says the most common types are ones with beasts' heads and legs and provides a picture that supports that stereotype. As far as I can tell, Warhammer's Beastmen originally drew somewhat heavily on Runequest's Broo, and that image does seem to have stuck.

I do prefer them as a distinct race, but I would maintain a higher chance of mutation than, say, humans.

Cheers

Sparrow

My players had the same reaction you did. It's become a joke at my table, culminating in our collective wisdom being put into a diagram:

http://stuff4nonsense.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/a-helpful-diagram/

It doesn't help that I bought a big box o' beastmen, put them on our fireplace mantel, and often get up and lurch in that direction at lulls during gameplay, making everyone cringe because they think they're about to get attacked. Then I get a cookie and sit back down. Drives 'em crazy every time.

But in general, you came to the same solution that I did: make the infestations specific to a given area or a couple of given areas, then leave it up in the air whether or not these seemingly isolated issues point to a bigger problem. My players are nervously trying to tie everything together.

nevermind........

Munchkin said:

First step I took to get around this problem was to have Kessler keep the ring until after the trial ('evidence'). That meant that the PCs would stay at least that long. The trial took place on the evening of the next day and afterwards the locals brought the PCs back to the inn for drinks and to get them to tell the story of the battle against the beastmen again. ('Heroes of Stromdorf yaaay!). That night the next adventure began and the next morning Kessler and Adler were offering them 50 silver each to go to the Garden of Morr.

Obviously if there isn't going to be a trial then you can't delay them like that. However remember that the bridge to Ubersreik is still washed out. The next shortest route requires crossing the ferry to the north then traveling 25 miles to Auerswald, Simply declare that it's late - if the PCs leave now they won't reach Auerswald before dark. Suggest that they'd be better off waiting at the inn until morning (instead of spending the night camped out in the middle of nowhere in the pouring rain), or even to wait until the bridge is repaired. It's 25 miles to Auerswald.... then 25 miles back, just to get to the other side of the bridge just outside Stromdorf! Not a pleasant journey.

James Sparrow said:

I try to describe my beastmen as a bit more varied than just horned goats and sheep. I like to point out that there's also some dog faces.

But yeah, most of the variety in beastmen since 1st edition seems to have disappeared.