UncleArkie said:

You have my condolance...and deepest sympathy. Once an ally, always an ally.
-from Norway

UncleArkie said:

Isn't she a female called Thaad?

I think you may be right.

Herr Arnulfe said:

This is kinda genius. I support this.

The two systems would canibalize players off each other, from a sales/marketing POV thats a really bad idea, you don't want whats in that jargon called product confusion.

Now you might be sitting there thinking "But I'm not confused?". The reason for this is that we belong to about 2% of the players that buy this game, going on the forums we are well informed about it, product advocates if you will, fans. You cannot expect the same level of knowledge that from the average player.

UncleArkie said:

Regardless of whether the two player bases cannibalized off each other, it would still generate more total revenue than your business plan, which is essentially "let [the componentless crowd] eat cake".

But with twice the costs? Don't forget that the previous edition had already 'run-it's-course', so to speak, and was not getting a good ROI. That's the time to hand it over to the fans

EDIT: Grammer is good

Fabs said:

Losing money wasn't an issue; remember GW handed over Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch as well. BI wasn't actually in the red at the end of their run, they simply weren't profiting enough from RPG sales to justify diverting BL manpower resources from the novels. There's no telling what an improved, cleaned-up corebook would've done to boost sales of WFRP v2.

Publicly-owned corporations are always looking to trim fat and improve their margins for the shareholders, even if some people find the love handles "add character".

Herr Arnulfe said:

Nope, product confusion leads to less revenue as the potential buyer will seek out another product that generate less confusion, among other things. But don't take my word for it, do a little research on marketing and you will find that schemes like what your suggesting has been attempted by several companies in the past (not just in gaming) and they all failed. One of the worst things you can do as a product or service provider is to compete with yourself.

UncleArkie said:

By that logic the 40K RPGs are competing with themselves triple-fold, yet they seem to be doing fine.

Also what happened with Black Industries was that GW hit its 7 year cycle. This is an old truism about the company, every 7 years they **** something up and their revenue goes down, MB game who owns GW panic and demand that they up profit and GW being led by a bunch of dimwits (trust me here I did work for them as a freelance and I know plenty of current and previous employees there) think that the best way to consolidate is for them to return to their "core values" namely the minies. Then everything closes, you see the same thing with Black Library that has now been "consolidated" into the main machine and is based purely on freelance due to the mythic eating up people like Kate Flack and others *cries*.

That they let Kate go to mythic was a giant loss, she had a major hand in getting the right feel that 2nd ed and the original Dark Heresy books had, don't get me wrong I love 3rd ed and what FFG are doing with the lines, but they lack that special tongue in cheek Englishness that made the original games so awesome.

Another funny fact is that BI was making a hell of a lot of money by RP industry standards when they sold the rights, again don't blame GW (as much).

Herr Arnulfe said:

They are marketed as different lines. WFRP(a) looks a lot like WFRP(b) covers and art are the same, logos match ect, thus product confusion and they are basically the same game, but the rules differ a little. WAR was not successful cus it initially looked too much like WoW, there already was one game on the market that looked and felt that way thus the game with the better support and marketing marketing won.

Dark Heresy is very different visually and play style wise from RT or again DW, they use different settings and cater to vastly different audiences being investigative horror, high adventures on the seas and legendary hero games respectively, while players may cross over its the same as that some of us may play WW games as well or that I have a few Kingdom Death minies that I use for private WFB games cus they look better than the GW ones. But again all I can say is that you should read up on it, its interesting stuff.

UncleArkie said:

I playtested DH, and have played a campaign of RT; they're not as different as you suggest. I'd argue there's a much bigger difference between WFRP v2 and v3 than there is between DH and RT.

Im not talking about rules, I'm talking about setting. Had the rules had any influence on this at all D20 OGL would have been a failure. In DH you where tired, frightened, alone, working for an unseen puppetmaster who would just as well throw you away as look at you all while expected to overcome odds that were stacked against you from the very get go. In RT your the master of giant space ship, the lord and master of thousands of lives and a mover and shaker, even more so than the individual space marine.

UncleArkie said:

Yeah, but if you give your DH characters 5,000 XP they can fit right into a RT crew. Similarly, the WFRP v3 setting is essentially a more heroic version of v2 from character creation, with a more unified party concept. They could call Silver Edition something else (Warhammer Grognard Roleplay?), put more emphasis on non-combat gameplay, and away you go.

But then your just playing rogue trader with a DH character, the setting is again changed. What I have sorta been trying to say is that the mechanics of the rules don't matter in this, its the setting and feel that sells a game.

Herr Arnulfe said:

This I approve of muchly, but again, maybe an expansion for 3rd ed that has more social actions and good explanations as how to run a social based game.

UncleArkie said:

The setting is the same, and in both games you're working for the Imperium. In one you work for an Inquisitor, and in the other you work under a Rogue Trader Charter.

Two separate WFRP games that were like "Fantasy Cthulhu" vs. "Narrative D&D4e with mud" would be just as unlikely to cannibalize from each other's customer bases, especially since their core systems would be totally different.

UncleArkie said:

What I'm hearing is: "I don't want componentless WFRP to be supported at all".

I'd like them to clarify encounter mode. I'd also like more examples of trackers, etc. I wish they would also sit down and readdress the magic system. It's great as it is, but it seems like a lot of token management to cast a spell. You need x power to cast a spell and x recharge tokens and can require multiple rolls instead of combat which only requires one. It's a great system, but it could use some streamlining.

I'd also like to see wounds addressed in a single standard system, that's a bit easier to manage.

Hope of hopes, I'd like to see card recharge destroyed, but I know that's never going to happen (lol!).

As a side note, creating a second edition version of the exact same game is absolutely a horrible idea. UncleArkie is right. It would cannibalize sales from the exact same product and weaken the dollars spent on both, making both inferior systems.

The funny thing is to me that UncleArkie points out that two competing products of the same game is a business mistake in a thread dedicated to a rules lite version of the same exact same game. Honestly, I do not see what he has pointed out to stand true of these two products (component and non-component play). Maybe we won't see it on the first run (honestly, a boost of sales will happen) at first. But eventually the hardbacks versus core box will compete with one another. I imagine the core will be phased out as it sales compared to the hardbacks. Because they are, essentially, the same product, but the hardbacks are better put together.

Component players who want to come in just with components need to buy:

1) A core box - 100 USD

2) 3 hard backs - 120 USD

3) 3 vault - 100 USD

Or

1) A core box - 100 USD

2) 4 expansion boxes - 170 USD

3) 3 Hard backs - 120 USD

Or

1) 3 hard backs - 120 USD

2) 3 Vaults - 170 USD

3) 4 dice packs - 48 USD

To have the most up to date rules information. Where as a non-component player has to buy:

1) 3 hard packs - 120 USD

2) 4 Dice packs - 48 USD

Basic economic theory says most people will buy the cheaper because it's simply cheaper if the two products are identical. Component play, by dollar to dollar comparison for all the exact same information, is way more expensive. This will not be clearly seen in the first run of sales, but I imagine players will begin to realize it as time goes on. Sure, there is a hope by FFG that non-component players will make the switch, but that's hard to say and I imagine they never will.

I also realize FFG has stated this is a one time shot. Just these hardbacks and no more. Well I also don't see that as viable either, as players will want access to all the same information and all those "glorious" percentile roll charts will need updating to account for the new wounds, madness, or any new deck they may create. Eventually a second run will happen of all the new information.

I also heavily doubt those component less players who want the ruinous power: Khorne expansion will buy it. They will instead wait for their hardback version to come out for all the reasons always listed: I will lose x card, I don't like fiddly-bits, etc. Also, if any new madness, wound, etc. is introduced they will have no way to interface with it and will demand some way to use it. Why should they pay, after all, for a component they are never going to use? This has been said time and time again. Any new talent and action card they will now have to look through a book and a handful of cards. This will be a complaint we hear on these boards time and time again. Eventually the only way to solve this problem will be new hardbacks. Eventually, as hardbacks include more of the exact same information at a cheaper price those who are not die-hard component fans will pick them up. Also, someone getting into the game will look at the dollar cost and the amount of huge boxes they need to buy rather than 4-5 hardbacks to get the exact same information and it becomes a no brainer, cheaper equals better for the exact same product.

These two directions will compete eventually for the same dollars. The only way FFG can prevent this from happening is to publish both play-styles in the same box set. Each rulebook must outline what is needed for component-less play and have all the components the component users need. That way the products don't compete, they are analogous and are accessible to all players in the exact same way. But this again, polarizes players because component-less players don't want to spend 40 bucks for cards they won't use, even though they would pay 40 bucks for a hardback with the same information they would actually use, if it was published as a stand alone product. Because the perception is different with the extra material included in the set.

So ultimately, what I want to see from the hardbacks, is for them to be handled in an efficient manner to support both play-styles in the future without creating competing sales between the two products (which they already have done with the creature guide/vault). I would like them to make sure they can support both fans equally at the same cost and in all fairness to both play groups without generating market competition over the same product. That is what I truly hope for. I do want everyone to experience this game that wants to in a way they will enjoy, but I want it to be done with a responsibility to the core product vision without generating pointless competition just to appease the broader market. I know a ton of people who won't play arkham because of all the chits involved. However, I don't see FFG publishing a chit-less based system for Arkham just to appease that corner of the market that don't want it.

commoner said:

If someone doesn't want to play v3, then denying them an alternative won't make them more likely to. Sure you'll get a few more people trying out v3 with these books, but I guarantee that an improved percentile system for WFRP would sell more than these hardcover books will.

Are you sure about that? What are your figures? Where did you get your data? I look at the inventory at a number of LGS back in 2e days and I was hard to find them. I also worked at a game store and we ordered in one run, kept one copy of each book on the shelf and sold them in the bargain bin about two years later.

I am sure some people loved it, but it's interface was old and competed heavily with DND. The 40k versions have no market competition so fill a gamer-nitch no other product really can support as well as GW products can. Fantasy is plagued by DND and Pathfinder, both of which are supported by a major company. Especially since the DND experience can deliver the exact same statistical information as 2e could, but in a better way. The original 2e system is a mimic of feats. The grid mechanic, to new gamers, seemed like a repetition of dnd's grid mechanic (regardless of which came first). The actions that could be performed in 2e was a mimic of DND 3e. The magic system, on paper, seemed inferior to it's competitor product which gives way more options and the ability to tailor magic to the genre rather than the WFRP rigid 2e system. From my standpoint, 2e is not inferior to DND (I actually hate 3e, 4e and all later iterations of DND). But the market states otherwise, partly due to WOTC market power, branding, and partly because 2e in so many ways reflected what DND was already doing, mimicking their innovations to gaming. It may lack career flavor (the only real difference it had over DND other than the magic backlashes) and some of the deadliness, but I can still get grim, gritty, and a world in the desperate throws of perilous chaos out of the experience. Mechanically, d20+ stat over a target number is different than percentile roll below, but it's not all that different.

I know many people say setting sells a game, but at the same time, so does System. System innovation offers a new way to play a game, especially when there are so many competitor products for the exact same genre. I could, right now, sit down and run a Warhammer game totally off of DND. Fantasy has a flood of systems at a player's disposal, all capable of doing x horrible evil is trying to destroy x good or x gray group of people. The only way to really distinguish between them is through the mechanics.

Showing people a new, exciting, and different mechanism to play their "fantasy" games is what allows one fantasy game to stand out compared to the next. This system does that and does it in bucket loads. So much in fact, that some gamers see so much innovation, they don't really get it and have cried out for more traditional play formats.

So, in a nutshell, I hugely disagree that 2e would outsell 3e hardbacks. The new edition opens up gaming to a whole new dimension. Some like it, others don't. But it offers a greater play experience than the traditional mechanism (besides considerably slower combat resolution per turn).

And creating two products so vastly different between the two will create an endless market war, much less amplifying confusion of vision and game focus on a level that will far surpass component and non-component play.

commoner said:

Again, conjecture and personal opinion.

But overall I agree with UncleArkie and Commoner (roll save vs "say what?")

The new hardbacks are more akin to the old AD&D 2E black cover books then to D&D 3E. The Black Cover books were a re-edited, erratta filled, updated version of the three core AD&D 2E books with new layout. They added nothing really new to the game, but were pretty, drew new attention from new gamers and were compatible with your earlier AD&D 2E books. 3E replaced 2E instantly outdating and invalidating all 2E books (for both systems).

While for years TSR published AD&D 1E and 2E side by side with Basic D&D, the two systems were so compatible that I could take a Basic D&D book and use it about 80% of the time with no tweaking and about 95% of the time with minimal (like 5 minutes of time) tweaking. So both markets were selling to the same general crowd. And both sides bought from both book sets. Plus AD&D 2E was back book compatible with 1E so for the longest time older 1E supplements could sell side by side with 2E books. And a short period existed where books were published supporting both 1E and 2E versions of the game, all in one.

Once you have a new version of the game rules, then you have major issues. When 3E for AD&D came out, no 2E or 1E or Basic D&D book was compatible as Armour Class had reversed, classes changed, feats were introduced, the proficiency system was replaced with the skill system and multiclassing not only changed, became almost the focus of the game. Creature stat-lines looked radically different and it was more or less a 100% different game. For WotC to try to sell a (even minor) line of books for 2E would have been insane.

However, much like with the change of 2E to 3E in WFRP, there is no proof that a follow up version of the 2E systems would have sold less or been a "bad choice". In fact, there is more room to say a continued version of the "core" original rules would have saved them money and netted them more profit. Yes most people would have bemoaned the notion of "paying again for information" they already owned, but updating WFRP 2E to a variation of Dark Heresy rules would have been cheap (most of the work has been done), easy (honestly, only a few writers would have been needed), and effective (built in audience).

When it comes down to it what is important is three things: Availability/Marketing, Usefulness and Cost.

If GW would allow FFG to sell even only the core books in their GW Stores, you would probably make some money. The easiest way of doing this is to sell a "pocket guide" which is a simple 100 page or so, small book format edition of the game. It may only cover the simplest parts of the game (one spell list, basic gear/weapons, 5 or so monsters, 15-20 careers), the rules and the setting. Something GW has been doing for years for their Table Top games (and quite effectively). Allow this simple version to be purchased online as well as in stores, and give a free copy of it to those who but the special collectors edition.

As for usefulness, well a rehashed version of the Old World Bestiary with even 25 pages of new material (essentially 2-5 more statlines for important critters, like beastmen, skaven, orks and such not, such as Champion, Lord, Wizard and maybe a specific rule or tow for each major race) would sell even if the majority of the book is the same as the 2E version.

Cost is a two part aspect. Cost to produce, cost to buy. The cheaper it is to make, the lower you could sell it for. A revised edition of 2E WFRP would be potentially cheaper as much of it is just rewrites, reprinted material and rehashing the old, and adding the new.

And it would sell. Trust me. Look at the sheer mass of people who bought Deathwatch, sight unseen, for $200 a pop. 2000 copies. Thats $400,000. 1000 copies of Rogue Trader at $120 a shot is $120,000. Thats good money, and way more then those books cost to make. Sight unseen. And then add in the regular editions and pocket guides.

But thats all personal conjecture and opinion. We will never know. We will never know if 3E sold better then a figurative imagined % 3E. All we can say is who did and who did not buy the new edition.

I didnt buy 3E D&D the same as I did not buy 3E WFRP. IMHO the changes made were not for me.

But FFG is making money, people are buying it, and people seem to like it. So it woudl also be conjecture on my part to say the 2E update woudl have netted more money or been more fun. Conjecture, but not true, and not false. Its an unknown.

commoner said:

It might create an Internet Fanboy War, but that's about it.

Here are the factors that contributed to v2 tapering off down the stretch run:

1. Major flaws in system implementation (low skill values, extended boring combat, poor usage of Degrees of Success/Failure): Some of us playtesters recognized these problems right away, but ultimately they weren't addressed, and v2's system problems ended up being a justification for FFG to scrap the whole concept.

2. Quantity over Quality: especially in the first year or two, the books were churned out with poor proofing and playtesting. By the end of the product cycle BI/GR found a better balance (witness the ridiculous ebay prices for NDM, ToS etc.) but by that time the product line had already been tainted by duds.

3. Lack of setting innovation: the Lead Developer was reluctant to use the post-SoC setting, but he was forced to by GW, and it shows. Additionally, the setting's "update" consisted primarily of porting WFB stats over to WFRP without much thought given to additional roleplay requirements.

4. Piracy: the v2 books were thin and of mediocre production quality compared to the 40K books. This, combined with factors #1-3, meant that people were likely to download illegal pdfs before buying hard copies. This evidently hasn't been a problem with the big, gorgeous 40K books.

I can't provide you with any hard data - I'm just going based on the local gamers that I've spoken to over the past year (many of whom I've never played WFRP with myself). If the next iteration of the WFRP percentile system was developed from the outset by people who love & play WFRP and "get" the setting (Andy Law, Steve Darlington et al), and was given the same attention as the 40K games, I assure you it would be a vibrant and successful product line.

I just want to clarify something.

I am not against componetless play, quite the contrary, I am however against ressurecting E2 in some kind of silverback version it would create an odd limbo life for the game- I am how ever all for the new hardbacks if it allows players with a weaker wallet to get in to the game or my players to get all the player related rules in one book so they don't have to rifel through 100's of cards to find the talent or action that they want.

That said I think that the component version of the game is by far the better, but I like fiddly bits and tokens and stuff it adds to the game and gives a feeling of interaction because your actually touching things.