Hi,

in "Encounter Mode" you can remove one recharge token from each card at the end of character's turn...

but if session is running in "Story Mode" WHEN and HOW can you remove recharge tokens from cards?

Broadly speaking, if you need to concern yourself with recharge rates then that's a sign you should be in encounter mode.

In general, a good rule of thumb is that a specific action may only be used once per scene.

Sadly I explained me badly... sorry

When an "Encounter Mode" is over some cards have still some recharge tokens left..

My question is: that recharge tokens remain upon cards during the following "Story Mode"?

If answer is "Yes", well, WHEN and HOW can I remove that recharge tokens in "Story Mode"?

Can I use cards in "Story Mode" that have still some recharge tokens upon?

Remove all recharge tokens when you end an encounter.

monkeylite said:

Are you sure?

Where is written that rule?

Galdor said:

Do you really want the GM to run X number of extra rounds, after all bad guys are already dead, just to finish the recharge on all the pending actions?

No, as monkeylite said, you typically remove all the recharge tokens once Encounter mode is over. If the recharge matters, then you'd stay in Encounter mode.

dvang said:

There are some cases when having something recharge over time in story mode works best. When my character uses Big City Bravado, I don't have to roll every time I want to use it. I can just have it running for a period of time.

As a GM, I keep the tokens, but then pull one at the end of a "scene," or if a significant amount of time passes. Each night they completely recharge.

dvang said:

Ok, but... where is written that rule (in Rulebook, FAQ, etc)?!?

This is Your game - invent Your own rules, faq etc!
Don't be so high-principled!

This is just a GAME and being flexible GM gives You and Your players more fun sometimes

ArSaghar said:

Ehm, I definitely Disagree!!

If I pay for a RULEbook , well, I expect from product bought only one thing: rules.

If I have to pay for something that is only a Guideline, well, maybe I'm not so smart

I've seen that you play "Chaos in the Old World" (for example): well, how could you react if someone should say you "Ignore 'Chaos in the Old World' Rulebook and Faq; just play for your Fun! Find by yourself the rules!" ?!?

It's not a matter of being flexible: it's a matter of COHERENT and BUGLESS Game Designing!

Galdor said:

Roleplaying has a very long and distinguished history of house-ruling. Almost every game I've been part of in 20+ years has modified, added, or eliminated at the very least one rule.

Galdor said:

Amigo,

I hate to tell you this, but this may not be the game for you. Chaos in the Old World is a board game, WFRP3 is a Roleplaying game. The objective of CitOW is to 'win' by using a predetermined ruleset. The objective of WFRP3 is to have fun and tell a good story with some friends. You can't 'win' WFRP, and the rules are there to help you have fun, not restrict your story and mess up the game. If you can't tell the difference between the two, I suggest you look into Warhammer Fantasy Battles (the army minis game) since it is closer to what you are asking for.

Now to answer your question, the rules DO state this, just think of it logically. If you remove 1 recharge token every round, and the combat is over, after 5-6 rounds all your cards don't have tokens. So you could just sit there for 5 to six rounds waiting, or you can sweep the tokens off your cards. This isn't a question of 'house rules' or 'BUGLESS' rules (which FAQs for every game prove to be a lie), its a question of common sense.

shinma said:

Shinma,

I've played RpGs, Boardgames, Miniatures Wargames, etc since 30 years (and I've designed some of them, that you probably have played)... so I know well the difference between RpGs and Boardgames, but I know also well that they have some common points: they need RULES to play them.

And it's not correct that rules -in RpGs- "help you to have Fun": it's obvious, but it is not quite correct... do you know anything about "Creative Agenda" and "GNS Theory" ?! (I can't link them on this forum, so try to search them on Wikipedia)

It's true that there are a lot of FAQs for a lot of RolePlayingGames, but RpGs 'well designed' (that means Coherent and Bugless design) have not any FAQ at all!!

Have you ever seen any FAQ for RpGs like "Burning Wheel", "Primetime Adventures", etc ?!

Sorry, but I'm an Academic Jurist, so I don't like words such as "a question of common sense": I've paid for Rules to play; if Rules have been well-written I don't need any FAQ, Common Sense, etc..

Galdor said:

Oh, for Sigmar's sake....

monkeylite said:

What's up?

Do you know what I'm speaking about (Creative Agenda, GNS Theory, etc)?!?

Galdor said:

I know exactly what you are talking about. I've been to the Forge. I'm familiar with Burning Wheel/Empires/MouseGuard, My Life With Master, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vinyard, etc. I can talk GNS and Big Model.

... and I agree with monkeylite.

And the Player's Guide spoke thus:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/wfrp/news/players-guide/WHF11_GameModes.pdf

(Looks around for a forum-troll-slayer)

Galdor said:

Don't confuse the two. As few similarities as they have, they are also very different. You are arguing their similarities, when you should be focusing on the differences.

Galdor said:

Yes actually, I know quite a lot about game design. Although Forgian design and theory isn't necessarily applicable to this - lets take a gander. For reference (since I can link):

Creative Agenda and GNS Theory - www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

You do realize that you are quoting a man (Ron Edward) who according to his own essays refers to you as 'brain damaged' for playing this game (as it features a GM)?

Lets see if I can clarify my points which DID use GNS theory to elucidate what I meant if that is what it takes.

WFRP3 is a largely NARRATIVIST game that features a fair bit of Simulationist play. You are asking as a Gamist why there aren't enough Simulationist rules to support your desires. The answer is its not that type of game, or rather, you have to do a bit of interpretation of the rules, which those of us trying to help you here seem to have no trouble with.

Galdor said:

I find it interesting that you quote games that a) haven't in their entire existence of many years sold as many copies as WFRP3 alone has in two quarters and b) don't have a fraction of the rules. But if this is your challenge - no problem. Gauntlet thrown, gauntlet picked up.

Since you have alot of trouble finding them let me help:

FAQ for burning wheel: http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burning_Wheel_FAQ

FAQ for Primetime Adventures (with errata for BUGGY design): http://www.dog-eared-designs.com/pta-changes.html

All games have FAQs. The ones that don't are so small, that either they haven't been thoroughly tested enough to have common questions/rules problems that warrant a FAQ, or the creator doesn't care to address the fan's concerns with one.

Galdor said:

Academic Jurist means 'Rules Lawyer' - which is a derogatory term in most groups in case you're not aware. What you 'like' isn't the problem. The rules are fine (... mostly). All the fine people posting here, and many of the people enjoying games at home and not visiting these forums don't seem to have your 'problems'. Very few games feature explicit rules stating that gravity is down at 9.8 meters per second squared, but we assume that without needing to be told. If you don't like 'common sense' try 'logic'. Many things are explicitly stated in the rulebooks you paid for, but you don't need to be told everything to derive the obvious from the rules presented.

If you have trouble (as we all do sometimes, I myself have asked some questions from the very helpful folks on these forums) please ask, and we'll try to help. Don't however insult us by trying to throw big terms around (especially if you're not willing or able to back it up) and try to hold us to some absurd standard that you have imposed and isn't part of solving the problem itself as it stands. Your question was answered several times, if you don't 'like' the answers I don't think that's necessarily our fault.

hmmm, to be honest many of those answers where bad answers.

A guy asking a honest question, get those mumbo jumbo answers...that's not good. If you can't give an good answer, so try not to answer or at least have decency to come up with something tangible instead of "just make up things or rpg have a long tradition of this and that..."

Not to be **** Monkeylite, but in retrospect you can see that your answers are clearly wrong, as examples of story modes have been presented by FFG itself. Still I am a fan of you Monkeylite

What I want with this is that maybe we should take a step back, and examine what this guy really wanted. to start a flamewar? being ridiculed? no He wanted some REAL answers, instead he got those riddiculous answers, that ticked him the wrong way. So instead of getting a good productive discussion going we have turned this into, yet another round of good ol trolling.

Con-grats

Mal Reynolds said:

Yeah, you're not being a ****. I've had access to the new Modes of Play chapter for a while, but, really, short of linking to it or regurgitating it in slightly different words, I couldn't really get the info across. My advice I stand by as a decent rule of thumb especially for new players and, I find that what the Modes of Play chapter gets across is the sort of thing you can naturally fall into during play as you play more.

Maybe, I should have just shut up, but I was genuinely trying to think of a quick and easy way to solve the guy's problem, who from his posts I thought was a noob player who was floundering a bit. I'll think twice in future.

I know what you mean. I've been slaped in the face for trying to help. And no one can know how somebody may react (all claws out at once). you where not an agitator of this.

your advice where sound. really.

where some might see it as an genuine attempt at helping, others (often with issues), sees it as an grave insult. hard to help these days. Thats why I made a new thread advicing to give the "right" kinda help, me being pretentious at times. really, its a personality flaw I have.

Mal Reynolds said:

Actually, most of those were both honest, and good answers. There was a page of genuine help and ArSagar gave an honest, if not necessarily helpful "remember you can house-rule" comment. Go back and re-read the comments, I think you might agree.

Mal Reynolds said:

Most of the answers were definitely not 'Mumbo Jumbo'. There were some concrete examples, and a few people reasoned out why they run things the way they do.

Mal Reynolds said:

Not to be **** Monkeylite, but in retrospect you can see that your answers are clearly wrong, as examples of story modes have been presented by FFG itself. Still I am a fan of you Monkeylite

Actually the answer of 'if you wait a few rounds, the tokens clear themselves, so once an encounter is over and some time passes, the cards are clear' is actually fairly accurate according to the FFG story mode example. Whether rounds are 5 seconds (combat encounter) or 15 minutes (climbing a mountain/city encounter) it still holds, even with the new rules clarifications. (PS. I too am a fan of monkeylite)

Mal Reynolds said:

I beg to differ. These forums are generally flame-war free (just don't look at the gromril armor wearing slayer thread! Ye gads). And the troll-slayers take care of the trolls. The guy asked a question, got some good answers, and got aggressive and belligerent not because he didn't get good discussion or accurate answers, but because the answers he wanted aren't printed word for word in the book for us to point at and this seems to gravely insult him.

I for one got to grab a few notes to take to my own group, and for that reason (if none other) I certainly hope monkeylite and all the others DON'T shut up when a question is asked. I'm sure FFG will eventually address a number of our questions, or clear up much of the confusion we have. Till then, the only source of quality discussion and friendly advice we have is the forums (and of course our individual groups).

(PS. Mal, got to see your post before the edit. Thanks ^_~)

shinma said:

So you did, did you? At first I agreed 100% with you and the others. Than I came to think why not read all the post through the offended perspective. So I did. and that made me edit the post, to avoid escalating it. But in away I was glad you had a chance to read it.

But agreeing with who, or who is wrong, is not really the issue here, it is how to avoid confrontations, And again I came a little too strong out against Monkeylite. And If I haven't expressed it clearly enough, Galdor have oversteped some courtesy lines here, to put it mildly.

No, I don't hope that anyone will shut up when a question is asked. only that some consideration should be put into their answer. that's all.

you are a master in disputato. how do you exactly do multi qoutes. is at simple as adding QUOTE efidm=384369] before the text you want to have quoted?

Mal Reynolds said:

Thanks to Mal, because he understood very well my questions and my replies to some answers

It was not my intention AT ALL to make a Flamewar. I'm a Moderator (in other Gamers Forum), so I surely don't want to troll, flame, etc..

If someone has been offended by my words I seriously apologize.

When I wrote that I'm an Academic Jurist I meant that I am Academic Jurist in my real life (that's my job). I know well what "Rulelawyer" means (why have you supposed wrongly?), but I start from a different point of view: System does it matters.

Furthermore: WHFRP3 has NOT a Narrativist design, but a Gamist design instead (as its authors often say)! Infact WHFRP3 has not Rules to address Narrativism (as RpGs like Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc have instead).

Anyway, all this is really off topic. I apologize for all this mess.

Backing up in topic: the rule suggested by Shinma is not correct.

Infact I've just read the Player's Guide Preview which state a different rule.