3 ed just does not cut it back to 2nd ed

By Pallomides, in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

Posted at

Sebashaw said:

I think 3°ed is more narrative, the system doesn't bore me with the physic of the world, it tells me only if an action fails or not.

I can let describe to my players even the damage to the characters. I don't find anything of a board-game in WHFR.

To me a good game is a game that work without "the rule 0" or "the golden rule": as master, I want play, not constantly fixing the game.

Exactly thats basically what happens when you create a very defined rule system, no matter what you do there will always be occurance and constant fixes required. I mean when I played 4th edition D&D I had over 60 pages written of house rules, with 3rd edition WFRPG I don't bother bringing the rule book to the sessions cause I honestly never need it. Thats the sign of a good system, one that has so much self correction and fluidity you don't need a reference manual to run it. It flows naturally and its energy (what pushes it) is the story, not the rules and mechanics that govern the mechanical effects of being a blue eyed 200 year old Elf… ohh.. thats -1 dex ? Silly stuff and is so arbitary it might as well be random. I hate that kind of stuff, its a waste of space in a good RPG book.

Posted at

"I'm going to grab some sand from the ground and right before he swings at me toss it in his eyes and than try to roll out f their". Now you have to come up with a die roll/action card and mechanic that handles that… and its not a parry. This is why I prefer abstract systems. When you start playing a role-playing game where combat is so defined that it does not allow you to act naturally, it is by definition no longer a role-playing game, it is now a miniatures tactical combat game."

I agree with you & I admit that this feature of a dynamic "abstract" system is cool. But there would be nothing preventing me from doing that in 2nd ed or Rune Quest. It depends on what type of GM you are: Dogmatic or flexible.

By on the by I play Warhammer fantasy and 40k so personaly I have enough things to collect. WHFRP 3ed tipped that limit I guess: I just could not shake that wiff of red, blue and white genuine american bull after I had realized that I would have to spend more money in order to expierience a better game. Or I am to old for new stuff.

Its been a cool discussion so far:

Posted at

Pallomides said:

"I'm going to grab some sand from the ground and right before he swings at me toss it in his eyes and than try to roll out f their". Now you have to come up with a die roll/action card and mechanic that handles that… and its not a parry. This is why I prefer abstract systems. When you start playing a role-playing game where combat is so defined that it does not allow you to act naturally, it is by definition no longer a role-playing game, it is now a miniatures tactical combat game."

I agree with you & I admit that this feature of a dynamic "abstract" system is cool. But there would be nothing preventing me from doing that in 2nd ed or Rune Quest. It depends on what type of GM you are: Dogmatic or flexible.

By on the by I play Warhammer fantasy and 40k so personaly I have enough things to collect. WHFRP 3ed tipped that limit I guess: I just could not shake that wiff of red, blue and white genuine american bull after I had realized that I would have to spend more money in order to expierience a better game. Or I am to old for new stuff.

Its been a cool discussion so far:

One thing that I think is very true about what WFRP is doing as a game system is creating itself as an established hobby in its own right. The cost of getting into it is high and once you start collecting, you kind of start to both appriciate it as its own hobby but also you start to consider it more of a permenant home rather than just another book on the shelf that you might get around running a game around. I mean I probobly have about 25 different gaming systems on my shelf. Now that Im Warhammer Fantasy.. when someone says lets role-play, its the only one I grab.