I and my Call of Cthulhu group are looking into a fantasy game to play. Warhameer looks promising but only if we can make GOBLIN characters. No interest in the sickly looking elves, dwarf or boring humans..

thx

There is no official rules for making goblin characters, but it wouldn't be hard to create goblins anyways. All you would need is a starting stat-line (easily fixed) and some special rules to go with the goblin race (like night vision and maybe something more). Woila, I think it's possible to do in less than 10 minutes as the system is easy enough to modify to fit other races than the official playable races.

k7e9 said:

Are all the adventures designed using elf, dwarf or human characters in mind?

Yes, the adventures are written mainly for the "good" races. Some of the adventures are easily tweaked to fit for example a goblin group, but most of them would require significant work to make it fit.

I think Llanwyre is running a goblin/orc campaign. See here: forum.strike-to-stun.net/viewtopic.php

i cant think of any published 3e product that could be modified to be played as a group of goblins. unless you simply hand wave the themes of warhammer.

if what attracts you to the game is the mechanics then you could play the game with a lot of custom work on the GMs part.

Um, pretty much every fantasy RPG is designed for the players to play "good" PCs, as are their pre-made adventures. Only after several years in production do most fantasy RPGs provide alternate rules for "evil" PCs. So, WFRP is really no different in that regard.

With that said, as has been pointed out, it probably isn't too difficult in WFRP to come up with some race rules and a couple careers for Greenskins (goblins and Orcs). You could probably even use a few of the currently existing careers, just giving them an suitably "orky" name instead.

dvang said:

A fair point. I'm having trouble thinking of one 1st Ed adventure where you play 'baddies' - my knowledge of 2nd ed is extremely limited, so can't comment on those, though wouldn't surprise me if it was the same.

Palladium and D&D are really the only Fantasy RPGs I can recall that allow you to play evil races from the get go.

D&D is only true for the most recent edition (I think, since I haven't played 4th Ed D&D). Previous editions, including 3 and 3.5, all the way back to Basic D&D and AD&D did not. It took a later expansion to provide those rules. As I recall, even then it usually didn't have them start as "evil" PCs, but instead were rules to allow traditionally 'evil' race PCs who could be played as a good guy (a'la Drizzt). There have been a few "evil" supplements and adventures made, but as I said, pretty well after most other material has been generated.

I vaguely recall running a published Ogre adventure, I think for one of the D&D editions (3e I think) that was fun as a one-off.

One of the WFRP second edition Skaven books had rules for playing as Skaven (baddie) NPCs. I don't remember whether it was the Skaven sourcebook (I think so) or the separately published adventure that featured the Skaven. Possibly both.

They did state that (although it's always up to the group) if the characters were played properly, it was unlikely that Skaven PCs would be suitable for a very long campaign, given the infighting and betrayal that goes on.

One game that is clearly designed for baddie PCs from the get go is Vampire, the Masquerade (and possibly the current version - not sure what it's called). With the Sabbat sourcebook you were unquestionably the bad guys. With the Camarilla you were at best (morally-speaking) playing bad guys trying as hard as possible to be good. Chances are though, you'd be playing pretty bad guys.

Angelic Despot said:

Think you mean Requiem.

It's interesting you say that. Every game I've played of Vampire had you playing the heroes. There may had been some moral imbiguity now and again (but hell, what good rpg group doesn't have this? ) but in general, I've only ever seen these as the good guys.

Unless it was a Sabbat campaign, in which case, all bets were definitely off.

This may go beyond playing bad guys. I think it goes to the extent that players sometimes think they MUST go beyond the core to find diversity. Its why new careers/classes sell. Players assume or have experienced that that everything is the same from session to session - some skill checks and two combats ` and hence feel that the only way to experience something new is to try out a new career/race combo.

In a way, our hobby has bred players who, if given two characters with the same stats race and career, would not know how to make or roleplay them differently because they feel trapped in the same roles if they're not given new statistical options. I think this is just the way many of us have been trained.

I asked this of one of a particular type of person at the rpga i've put up with over the years whilst he was ragging on another player for not optimizing his character, and he responded with the affirmative: "Without new class/race combinations, all characters are the same, because I've already discovered the best combination of abilities so why would you play anything less if you're playing a human fighter for instance."

Another friend of mine switched to WFRP from D&D BECAUSE he felt then he had all these new character types to play.

Personally, I always play HUMANS, because they have the BEST chance for diversity. You've got endless personalities, countries and cultures; whereas dwarves get labeled as one thing and elves as another, and halflings are always ridiculous. Goblins, well, there's what seems the same ground of ridiculous but malign. Sure, each of these races are not restricted to typecast, but they certainly feel it to many of the players when all the emphasis is on stat combos and not roleplay.

My point is that the OP saying that the core races are boring/overused/cliche is probably due to conditioning, rather than fact and it's up to the players and GM to present their character personalities in a world with and situations that go beyond roleplaying statistics or just latching onto another 'feel combo' of a new race and career.

If you were handed two human soldiers with the same statistics, could you think of non-statistical ways in which they are different and could be played differently? Of course you could! That's what makes us tabletop players different from a statstical online mmo player. (of course some people always play the same character type over and over and over)

For the goblin group, that means having 5 players that can make each goblin different. Oh, they'll each have different careers to be sure..but are they different or do they just have different stats? I'm interested to see how your campaign turns out.

One last thought: as a GM, you've got a wealth of material for core roleplay. To run a greenskin campaign, you're creating everything from scratch. I don't know about you guys, but it may seem like I post here a lot, but my time is really very limited..as as a GM, time to prep is everything..and burnout of a GM and group occurs more frequently when a GM is overworked.

jh

Sausageman said:

Hmm... I know what you mean. I think it probably comes down to where you play / who you play with. I have played Vampire as a 'hero', but as I got older, and reflected a bit more on this a) I'm not as interested in doing this as I used to be, and b) I don't think the game is really meant to be played with 'heroes'. The mechanics of humanity - if taken seriously by the group - are designed to represent characters trying to remain 'good' but gradually failing to be so. If all you're really interested in is a superhero game with a supernatural 'skin' then you just downplay the humanity rules. As groups I have been a part of have done in the past.

A lot of the 'fluff' of the game also suggests that the game is about desperately and futilely attempting to avoid becoming 'a bad guy' even if you don't start out that way.

Interestingly, I think the live action version of Vampire is much more likely to be full of morally ambiguous PCs than the tabletop game tends to be.

I guess it really comes down to what you're used to and want out of an escapist game.

I usually want a a little bit of heroism, and that's one of the things I like about WFRP. You may be grim, corrupt, incompetent and unsuccessful, but you are - in your own small way - heroes.

Emirikol said:

This really saddens me, and says to me that many people just 'roll-play' rather than roleplay. Probably a throw back of MMOs and computer RPGs, where nigh on every conflict is resolved by killing things, and very little talking of consequence is done...

Memorable characters do not come from roll-playing, in my experience...

Sausageman said:

Indeed. Last session, one of my PCs contracted his first disease (one with the "Delirium" symptom) and rather than getting a negative response as you might expect from most players today, it actually caused the party to get a bit energized, making comments about how the onset of his delirium was going to create all kinds of awkward scenarios around his change of behavior that would lead to some great "role" playing. He actually curious and invested in how the disease was going to impact his character. It was a glorious moment!

Too often, players get frustrated if they can't win every encounter through sheer, blunt force and walk away without any lasting consequence. Ugh!

This is an excellent example when you need to hand out a benefit ('bennie' in Savage Worlds) for good roleplaying. I usually toss the player an extra fortune point for good roleplaying and I try to do it for each player once per game.

jh