Having finally read and re-read and mostly digested WFRP, I think it's a lovely piece of work. Beautifully put together and refreshingly original, taking a similar gamist line to D&D4 but leaving control with the GM rather than the rulebook (sometimes too much, you could argue!). Yes, some of the rules could be tighter in places, but I suspect that's because they were intentionally trying to downplay the "crunch" aspect and perhaps just overdid that. However, a few things have cropped up which I thought I'd share in case people have answers or opinions. Well isn't that what forums are for!?

1. Map of the Manor - an easy one, but is there a map available of the manor house in the sample adventure? This is an essential if I'm going to run this with my group, which means I will need to make one up if there isn't already one, but there only seems to be partial, unlabelled, rough sketch provided, which is a tad annoying.

2. Reiklanders - I can see how in a long-term campaign, the default humans are probably balanced with the other races, but my group flits from game to game and may play WFRP once or twice and never look at it again. As such, I was thinking of giving the humans 1 extra creation point. Does this sound about right?

3. Human NPCs actions - one of my RPG pet-hates is when what a character can do is restricted by meta-game elements like class or PC/NPC status. Yes, things may be harder to the point of being impossible, but the option to learn or train should always be there. I have no problem with the monsters having unique actions, but all of the actions available to the NPCs in the WFRP rulebook should IMO be available to PCs. Can anyone see any particular balance issues with doing this?

4. Managing NPCs in battle - how have GMs who haven't bought the Creatures Vault coped with this? I can see myself being surrounded by photocopies of the monster pages, with tokens and wound cards all over the place just waiting for a stray elbow to send the battle into chaos!

5. Glad to see the list has already come up with solutions for the quite blatantly broken Opposed check rules, and I also agree with the suggestion I've read of having a limited (albeit it not too limited imo) list of actions available for each career. Would love to see if someone has got a finished draft of this. Otherwise nothing more to add here. Good work people :-)

6. Character sheets - for me, the character sheet is one of the most important aspects to the game. It is in effect the GUI of the game system, and too many games are still relying on the equivalent of Unix. As I said, my group dips in and out of games, and so the character sheet must immediately grab the players' attention, communicate the genre, must contain only the key pertinent information in a way that is accessible and relatively jargon free. WFRP actually helps a huge deal here, because you can keep so much info off the character sheet and on the cards, and I also like the idea of putting the basic actions on there. However, for me, I'd drop the career card - it adds so little and takes up so much space. The only real during-play value that it offers is the action and talent slots (which can be marked on the character sheet) and the picture. I may design a character sheet with a cut out, so you can slot the career card behind it. Getting creative

7. Encumberance - I will at some point change these rules, and it's more a thought I've had about RPGs in general recently. I think encumberance is way underplayed, and for me the WFRP is a little more on the realistic than cinematic style. The effect of momentum on you if you are so much as wearing a backpack with a few pounds of weight in it is more than enough to disadvantage you against someone not so equipped. I think of WFRP parties as pragmatic adventurers, wagons or pack animals in tow, following coin or righting wrongs or doing their thing in whatever pragmatic way they can. they aren't dungeoneers leaping around slaying rooms full of orcs and zombies with a backpack full of lanterns, holy water, iron rations and a couple of spare weapons. I may do something like double the point at which fatigue affects a player, and then restrict the free maneuver each round for characters who try to fight with much more than armour and a weapon.

I think that'll do. A lot of random thoughts bouncing off in different directions, but I've knocked flat with a chest infection this week so it's given me waaaay too much time to think about it :-)

I hope you feel better soon. Nothing like being wiped out with illness.

>1. Map of the Manor - an easy one, but is there a map available

Link: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

>2. Reiklanders - I can see how in a long-term campaign, the default humans are probably balanced with the other races, but my group flits from game to game and may play WFRP once or twice and never look at it again. As such, I was thinking of giving the humans 1 extra creation point. Does this sound about right?

There's no point in house ruling if your group will only play once or twice. I'm a big house-ruler, but this would be really just nit picking at the game. The "two white dice once per game" ability is used very consistently in our group. My players like it and I think it is a very fair balance over the demi-humans.

>3. Human NPCs actions - Can anyone see any particular balance issues with doing this?

Actually, that's how it works in the creature vault. You're supposed to just put them together. In my game, i just use the basic actions and throw in roleplaying elements manually..but I don't care for the trivial changes to creature actions (see below)

>4. Managing NPCs in battle - how have GMs who haven't bought the Creatures Vault coped with this? I can see myself being surrounded by photocopies of the monster pages, with tokens and wound cards all over the place just waiting for a stray elbow to send the battle into chaos!

OK, here's where people are going to disagree with me: I personally think that the creature vault makes things a LOT worse. Instead of having one photocopy of the monster page, you're surrounded with a stack of jumbled cards which get mixed up and you're dancing your GMing arms over them the whole time. If you get the creature vault, the solution to the "jumbled creature vault cards-syndrome" is to put them in album pages and either use a vis-a-vis marker or a post-it note to track wounds, use of special actions and ACE dice. Remember, all monsters/npc's can use all basic actions as well so it's best to have a basic action sheet on your GM's screen (or whatever you use). I also encourage you to have your players use this sheet instead of having cards scattered to the 9 winds...

>5. Glad to see the list has already come up with solutions for the quite blatantly broken Opposed check rules

Yea, we just use # of successes wins. I don't know why they went with such a wierd mechanic.

>6. Character sheets -

As you can see in the forums here, we've been working on a couple new character sheets. They're very colorful, but they don't have all that scary, dark artwork around them that the older, simpler, editions had the luxury of. I think it's something we could work on for the 2nd page if nothing else Yes, absolutely drop the career sheet from the table. I'm still not exactly sure why they would put that on the table instead of havng a "draw your character" box on the character sheet. Back when we used to actually bother socketing talents, we just scribbled a tab on the side of the character sheet.

>7 Encumbrance

The problem with the current system doesn't seem, to me at least, the "system." It's the unsatisfactory presentation of the equipment list.

..

Ah good of you Emirikol to hold the FFG fort, me being busy with LF, therapy and general life, means that I haven't been very active on the FFG forums lately.

So feeling bad about neglecting the forums, I visited and felt heartily at joy seeing your posts.

I hope we can get you back some days, you are sorely missed.

well I just wrote to say it felt good to see you around on the old FFG forums. Keep it up.

Rikard

phild said:

Not sure is JH read this wrong, but the PCs should not have access to all NPC actions. NPC actions do a number of things to make NPCs easier to run, such as having wording not requiring the NPC to generate power or favor. NPC actions also add a lot of +1 critical because NPCs weapons are generic and don't have a CR. The PCs should not get NPC actions. Many NPC actions are daemonic in nature as well and these powers have no place on PCs.

I'm sorry if this is a pet peeve, but there are sound reasons for it.

That said, if you do want a PC to have an action like a certain NPC action, I would recommend converting it to follow the way PC actions are done.

Ooops! Yep. I said that in reverse: The NPCs should have access to all PC actions,not the other way around I also meant to add that they should have access to all BASIC actions.

jh

JasonRR said:

Was worried this might be the case. Which is particularly silly where the NPC's overlap PC careers.

The PC Soldier meets an NPC Soldier and discuss how they deal with unruly commoners. The PC goes into gruesome detail as to how he kills them by stabbing them in the face. The NPC explains that he just disarms and overwhelms his opponent using the Subdue technique. The PC soldier looks at the NPC with disbelief. "What on earth is Subdue," he asks quizzically? It's the NPC's turn to be astounded, as he explains that every soldier from the most junior rookie to the most grizzled veteran knows how to Subdue.

(similar situation arises with the Arcane Bolt for Wizards in particular)

Can see that I'm going to have to create a card to cover this and probably other actions as well. Sorry to insult the guys responsible for a cracking game, but in my mind this is shoddy game design. If an NPC human can do it, a PC human should be able to do it. And not because the GM writes his own rules to make it so. That's just basic game-world verisimilitude.

I just feel it's incomplete in that regards. Simple tables and charts would have helped this game immensely. Although it gives us players and GMs something to do to feel creative You'd just expect that sort of stuff to be 'standard' to a game and it gives the GM just another load of work.

jh

phild said:

PCs and NPCs that don't have access to particular Action Cards can still attempt those actions by using the perform a stunt Action. Just apply extra challenge or misfortune dice to reflect the difficulty of performing an action that the character isn't familiar with. No need to create extra cards.

phild said:

Creature Action Cards define what the NPC is capable of, not what the players are incapable of . Anyone can attempt anything reasonable via the inherent freedom of core mechanic. That philosophy is carried right through the game in a suggestive rather than prescriptive manner.

Examples: freedom to access most actions regardless of traits, no set default difficulty to rolls, high level of negotiation between players of actions attempted and results interpreted, liberal use of additional dice to pools encouraged,relative creature threat levels instead of creature vs PC threat level measured, few defined career paths, freedom to invent skill specialisations and so on and on.

I think people forget, Action Cards are not the core mechanic.They are illustrations of implementation of the core mechanic.

Well said Daedalum, well said

Daedalum said:

A most helpful reminder, thanks. Which implies that a GM needs to memorise each and every action card in order to be able to adjudicate accurately on an equivalent "unskilled" use, but important clarity all the same!

A daunting task, one that in my case may cook my brain. I find observing and experimenting with the dice pools and their results during play more useful. And something that gives me an instinct for balance. It took a few games of bad calls from me but hey we were all learning.

I opt to just use the Basic Cards as a template, avoid over thinking challenge or recharge and add both a black die for attempting something unusual and a white die for player creativety. Basing things on the modest basic actions means players will still find appeal in cards other than Perform a Stunt. I'll let long term play reveal the nuance of more fancy cards for both myself and players

Oh, it also helps to think: "how hard do I want this unusual action to be on this occasion, in this situation" rather than "what is the general base challenge of similar cards".

1. This is a common complaint. Someone made a map of the manor based on how they interpreted it. I can't recall off the top of my head where it is located. There was a thread on the forum about it.

2. Reiklanders are balanced and fine from the start. First, keep in mind their special ability, "once per session add [WW] to a test" is very useful. Second, they have a better selection of careers. Third, they aren't automatically viewed with suspicion. The Empire is rampant with racism and bigotry regarding non-humans. Non-humans, even dwarfs and halflings, are generally viewed with either distrust or awe, or a mixture of the two. Unless you are in a major city (and even some of them), prices will tend to be higher for them, people won't speak as freely with them, and they'll draw more attention and scrutiny to their actions. Non-humans can't be particularly unobstrusive or unnoticable. They don't "blend in" to the crowd. See? There are lots of reasons why a Reiklander is better than non-human. You don't need to give them more advantages.

3. It depends on the actions. Most of the NPC/monster actions are pretty specific to a race based on their physical abilities or mindset. You cannot let PCs use "Troll Vomit", for example. There are probably some that could be usable by PCs, and those I don't forsee any issues doing so if you wanted.

4. Pre-vault I would photocopy just the monsters/NPCs that I expected my PCs would potentially encounter during the session. That worked fine. I would recommend, however, getting the vault ASAP. Now I just take a few minutes to pull out the cards and related actions for those NPCs.

5. To each his own. I don't see the Opposed checks as broken at all, and they work for me. <shrug> I do think it is interesting that in #3 you say you don't like restricting a PC's actions ("...by meta-game elements like class or PC/NPC status", yet here you suggest restricting their actions, "...a limited (albeit it not too limited imo) list of actions available for each career". Personally, I don't think actions should be restricted at all. However, I do think it might be reasonable to have certains actions cost an additional XP point to acquire, similar to skills.

6. There are a variety of character sheets online that people have made. I'd check those out to see if any appeal to you.

7. Encumberance is a means to prevent a player with money from loading up on gear. You could have a player start with max weatlh. They then proceded to buy and want to equip/use something like: Breastplate, a sword, longbow, two pistols, a tower shield, along with various other trappings. They have the money to acquire it. What stops them is the fact that with their Str 3 or Str 4 they cannot carry it all. They could acquire a horse/cart/etc to carry all the gear. Then, however, when a fight occurs they will need to spend maneuvers to get it off the horse/cart if they don't have it on them, etc. It is a matter of balance. Keep in mind that dwarves get a bonus to carrying/encumberance. If you alter the penalties for encumberance, you are diminishing dwarfs.