Nisse I completely agree, and disagree, which means I partly agrees

First of all, I don't run a democracy, I have a campaign, and I have an idea of how the game should run. This is an approach I decided upon long ago, as I became tired of listening to players constant different views, that strangely enough changes depending on which class/situation, hypocrisy is strong in players.

I welcome feedback, and am always open for changes, but only if I find them useful/valuable. It's harsh, and some don't like it.

How does this relate to the subject…?

As a GM and player, I've found that the greatest fun for players, comes from being able to do something that is important and unique (and roleplay, but this means little in the discussion…).

So when I have a hunter and a bright wizard, I'm suddenly in the situation where two characters have the nearly same strengths and weaknesses (skill/stat-wise namely). So I have to find out how to make them stand apart. I do this by saying that stats/skills are to be interpreted different depending on careers. So while the hunter might have Int 4 and 2 Observation he would have a very hard time spotting the disguised Celestial wizard, and same for the wizard trying to spot the leaves in the forest covering a trap.

I'd really prefer the players letting the hunter do stuff that is designed for him to do, and so on, but players maximize, and so will let whoever is best on paper do the tricks, even if it doesn't make any sense.

The same really goes with other stats/skills. Shouldn't the soldier with 3 Fel and 2 WS trained, be better at impressing a fellow soldier, than the Fop with 4 Fel and 1 Charm? I know there's a different answer for various circumstances (and player creativity), but I would really say the soldier should have an advantage.

Nisses said:

Sure! Any help will be welcome. I can keep you posted of the ideas we have, and you can share which ideas you have

So far, it started yesterday, so I guess it will take some time to get inertia and start moving.

I will send you a document with the few brainstorming ideas we got.

Yepesnopes said:

Yepesnopes: I would also be very interested to take a part in this. Having played WFRP since 1st ed and running many of sessions in 3rd ed, I agree with much that has been said in this thread. I was also thinking of a 3.5 ruleset that would be 100% compatible with 3rd ed material, but I don't have nearly enough time to do that alone.

However I understand if you have enough people contributing already, I don't want to be too pushy with this (but it would be great to see at least what ideas you've gathered).

I will send you guys a few word documents with the initial brainstorming we did with my group. Just give me a few days to translate it to english, I am feeling very lazy these days

Spivo,

No sweat, we're in the Gamemasters' section here, everybody does/takes it the way he sees it, at least that's what a GM should do
I don't consider that harsh at all. I understand, and it's an appropriate solution the way you decided it should be done. And I fully agree that the most fun comes from having players be able to do something that only they can do, and then as a GM make sure that they get the opportunity to use it.

I guess I find the skills in this edition to be to broad & generic. If they were more specialised to begin with, you wouldn't need to "specialise" where you only get a white die. You'd specialise from the start, and you'd have more choices, meaning wizards & scouts would not end up with the same skill-set unless they specifically intend to.

Maybe a skill-tree could work here. But that's more something for HouseRules I suppose

Weak GMing usage of specializations creates situations where all characters are the same, imho. GMs should keep the list of specializatoins handy, and announce more usage of them, rather than saying " make a nature lore check ," instead say, "add 4 vblack dice if you don't have a specialization of some kind in that." That solves sthe generic problem right there.

It just seems to me that too many skills is a BAD THING (i.e. GURPS-style), but making a point to the benefit of skill specialization benefit would diversify things.

jh

I keep Count Dimon's reference sheet handy and in my notes always indicate it's a "Resilience (resist poison)" or it's a Observation (keen vision)" check, with players free to ask, suggest additional specializations that apply. I've noted the "two skills can't, but in right condition two specializations can both apply" rule as well to them so fact I declare one does't mean another one may not help too.

Especializations will hardly ever make the difference unless you house rule something as Emirikol propouses, which is a nice alternative.

We are thinking to swap the skills and the especializations rules. That is, "generic skill training" adds white dice to the dice pool (you can train say 3 levels max one per rank) while especialization training (which you can train 3 levels + Mastery, max 1 per rank) adds yellow dice. Together with this, we will drop the fortune dice into characteristics which will be "moved" to the general skill training. Similarly, upon fiinishing a career where you have trained an especialization you will get a white dice of "general skill training" in its relevant skill (still max 1 per rank).

This is part of our brainstorming to move to a "3.5 edition", and is a bit in the line of what Nisses says about an especialization tree (I guess).

I think the dice swap is an excellent idea:

Training becomes a white (instead of yellow)

and

Specializations become a yellow (instead of white)

The player then when he says, "does this relate to resist poison?" and has to be a lot more alert about using their OWN abilities, instead of counting on the GM to spoon-feed them everything.

jh

Emirikol said:

Well, indeed, the idea is to motivate the PC to both, be more alert and to role play more his character so he "provokes" situations where his especializations are relevant (especially in areas like guile, charm, leadership). Of course, in the other side of the contract, the master should honestly counsel the PC which can and which cannot be a relevant specialisation in his campaing (climbing, rowing, swimming?).

By the way Emirikol, for this self called "3.5 ed" that we are going to play, we are just plainly stealing your house rule of repeating a career. My players found it very good and very preassure relieving idea.

Emirikol said:

New Zombie said:

And if a GM won't be restrictive on specializations, it can quickly turn out that Players have 3 yellow dice in (for example) the WS (hammer, 2-handed,reckless) on their first ranks.

Moreover, by this house rule you make training less useful and worse than fortune points connected with stats.

Cheers!

You are missing the point, but that is only because I didn't go deep on explaining the changes we are doing.

@NewZombie: The chances for sigmar comets are not reduced since yellow dice come with specialisations. You can "train" a specialization as many as three yellow dice (plus a fourth level for mastery, just as now you do with skills). The only thing that changes is that in skill checks especializations are more important. For example, a scout can have a general training in observation (which grants a white dice to all observation rolls) and two dice trained in Follow trails and one dice trained in Alertness and none in search. Depending on the specialization involved in the test (following orcs through the woods, seeing the shadow that stalks him, or looking for a hidden door) he will be rolling two, one or no yellow dice, but always a white dice coming from the general training.

@Armoks: Of course in our redesigned system, specializations are different from the ones suggested in the WFRPG 3 system, and you cannot apply two in the same check (we still have to see to this, it may be that if a secondary specialization applies to the check it may grant one single extra white dice to the pool. We have to see to this possibility). But in a first approach, checks are covered by one specialisation. For example, if a check of observation is covered by alertness, it is not covered by follow trails. If a check of skulduggery is covered by pick locks, it is not covered by pick pockets. If a WS check is covered by greatweapon fighting, it is not covered by dual weapon fighting or mounted combat.

@Amorks: Yes we are going to give away fortune dice in characteristics. So that you can have a general picture of what we are trying to do with skills and especializations, white dice granted by Fortunes in characteristics in wfrpg3 are moved to "skill general trainings". The yellow dice granted by skill training in wfrpg3 are moved to specialisation training. As a result PCs won't roll less dice, they will be just more focussed in a given field, or less good overall the fields if you prefer. It is a more 1st and 2nd edition approach to the game. In wfrpg3 PCs they start just to good for our game style, and even worse, they evolve amazingly fast. We like more the concept of the previous editions of the game, where PCs started as adventurers (common folk with the will of "change things") with a long way to cover before to become heroes. Ok, I may agree than in previous editions they started may be a bit too bad

New Zombie said:

That would affect combat quite a bit wouldn't it! Hmm. I haven't done it in my game, but I would like to find a way to make specializations matter more. I'm thinking the extra difficulty is the key. Success is typically so easy in this game that a few more black dice should be enough to shake things up.

jh

Yepesnopes said:

Go for it! Those are public house rules from which Tzeentch hath passed to me and sayeth, "Go forth and corrupt the masses with rules of the house!"

jh

Heh the changer of ways, I'll be calling 3.5 the Tzeentchian edition

So effectively, you're diversifying the skills by sort of doing away with the generic skill-slots (or sort of incorporating them in the fortune dice on primary stats) and using the specialisations as skill-slots instead.

The main problem with that as stated is going to be that Weapon Skill/Ballistic Skill & Invocation/Piety will be diminished as already stated above.I think the tree-idea could help, but I'd need to actually explain what I meant

I'd limit basic and advanced skills (like Weapon Skill, Evocation or Observation) to 1 yellow die maximum. Instead, subsequent training in that skill should automatically be done in a specialisation, but still in yellow dice. This specialisation could continue up to 3 yellow dice.

Nisses said:

Ah, ok! Indeed, this is an interesting approach, if you go deeper on it, let me know please.

Regarding specializations, I still don't see how can you diminish WS, BS or any other skill by using specializations as I was exposing. I mean, if you are a warrior especialized in let say great weapons and you have two levels on it, your are still rolling two yellow dice, I don't see why combat is going to suffer from it, or if you are a Bright Wizard specialized in casting spells of your wind…well the same. I think the confusions arises by mixing the concept of which is call an especialization in wfrgp3 and what are we (me and my group) calling and specialisation.

Nisses, as I promised, I will send you some documents in english, lets see if I can do it by the end of the week.

Cheers

Yepesnopes said:

at my table specialisations are chosen more for thematic character building reasons than for the mechanical benefit of the white dice. this house rule would likely mean that players select specialisations that are frequently used, thus reducing diversity. that is why i commented about caution.

New Zombie said:

I see now what you mean. Nonetheless, this house rule is unlikely going to reduce diversity since diversity is already cut down due to the generality of skills, I mean two characters with different backgrounds look very much the same after a few xps. Again, you have to think that this house rules are born upon the necessity to adapt the game to a 6+ (normaly 8 in my case) players party. Many of my players find uncomfortable with the game mainly because two issues

Noncombat checks (especially opposed checks vs NPCs) are extremely easy to resolve (and they have only 11xp)

The lack of skills makes that the some characters feel a bit cheated, like the scout, the noble and the thief, since other players (i.e. wizard, priest and archer) doe it equally well.

We never had these issues in previous editions of the game (or other games we have played like RuneQuest and ArsMagica) because there were more skills, and characters were more specialised. While wfrpg3 may be a blessing for small parties 3 - 4 players, because PCs evolve super fast and they can easy cover all check fields of the game, for large parties this is bad.

In brief, what I am trying to achieve with this house rule is to find a point in between wfrpg2 and wfrpg3. In the second edition characters started the game a bit too low. Starting characters, even if they had a skill, they were rolling under 30-40% in their field of expertise for an average check, and under 15 - 20% if they did not have the skill. On the good side, the evolution of PCs was much more gradually. With this house rule, starting PCs have an average success ratio between 40-50% when they are not rolling in they field of expertise, and between 55-65% if they apply their specialisation, on average checks, and alos PC evolution becomes more gradual since they have to rise different especializations for the same skill (if they want of course).

Regarding the limited opportunity to roll yellow dice, that is a matter alos of the creativity of the PC, especially in social encounters, to take the action into his field of expertise.

Just back on topic for a moment - I see the Star Wars RPG has just been announced, which someone in this thread pointed out was probably on the way. Looks like WFRP3 is becoming the second son in the attic no one wants to talk about …

UniversalHead said:

1) Sorry for diverting your thread.

2) Yes, indeed. Actually, of late since I am planing giving up with wfrpg3 (I will be running four more session and decide afterwards), I have visiting forums of other rpgs (Ars Magica, RuneQuest in between others) and it has been shocking for me to see the designers of the games giving their opinion in the forums, even in the house rule sections

Well, at least - warning, cynicism ahead - we can be grateful that WFRP wasn't broken into three RPGs, each repeating the basic rules system. What a corker of a business model that one is!

Heh I had the opposite reaction. Struck me as a better model based on hindsight from wfrp. Each release would allow an updated/ errata-ed revision of the rules and cards would be an optional POD. Would give an easier entry point to new players in the long term than the mess of options in v3. But the proof is in the pudding, as they say. Also the most appealing model to me would be a set of free living core rules available online with a range of supporting physical products. =D

Here's the major thread on the Star Wars beta: forum.rpg.net/showthread.php

The comments are to be expected: Other than the dice, people commented that they don't want it released like WFRP3.

"Each beta copy of the book includes a sticker sheet, with all the sides of all the dice you'll need. Using this sheet of stickers and your own polyhedral dice, you'll be able to create Edge of the Empire's custom dice."

It would be sensible that since FFG has quit producing the dice for WFRP3, that they would get us some sticker packs for our dice as well…or how hard would it be to make them?

jh