I can pretty much guarantee that you'd have an easier time finding players for a percentile RPG than one based on coin-tossing or tarot reading.

A matter of debate that one. I've played 2d6, 3d6, d20, d100 and dice pool and it depends entirely on the system built around the dice mechanic. One of the best homebrew games I ever played in used no dice at all, but used playing cards. Unfortunately the argument over d100 or dice pool obscures the fact that it will need to be a revolutionary system which may not agree with 2nd OR 3rd edition players depending on what they are used to, if they have become blinkered to the new systems possibilities.

One thing I would say about percentiles or dice pool I found out while doing Grunburg for both 2nd and 3rd edition.The second edition encounter tables took a lot more number juggling and a lot more space than the third edition to produce broadly the same results. Make of that what you will.

I think you'd find that most WFRP fans would have no problem with a new percentile system being significantly different from 2e's. I'm just not sure how "revolutionary" they could make a percentile system (if indeed revolutionizing the system is a worthy objective vs. just providing a solid staple system for great setting content).

One thing I would say about percentiles or dice pool I found out while doing Grunburg for both 2nd and 3rd edition.The second edition encounter tables took a lot more number juggling and a lot more space than the third edition to produce broadly the same results. Make of that what you will.

Well, they are good for different things.

I'll forever hold up the travel rules from the new Enemy Within as a shining example of a good way to use a dice-pool mechanic, mainly because you can get such a lot of story from a single roll.

On the other hand, I still bring my d10's when I GM, If only to randomize targets.

I think you'd find that most WFRP fans would have no problem with a new percentile system being significantly different from 2e's. I'm just not sure how "revolutionary" they could make a percentile system (if indeed revolutionizing the system is a worthy objective vs. just providing a solid staple system for great setting content).

In theory you could have a revolutionary system with no dice at all. However from doing Grunburg I have found that adding a misfortune or misfortune die to the pool is a lot more nuanced than just adding or taking away 5%. Sure you could build a revolutionary system around percentiles but IMHO it can be more revolutionary with the dice pool.

We've come full circle on whether 3e's current diepool system is revolutionary enough to be worth the trouble and we clearly disagree. I didn't get the same nuance from Misfortune dice that you do and that's OK, neither of us is wrong or right, but 3e clearly missed *something* in the process of revolutionizing or else more people would be playing it.

We've come full circle on whether 3e's current diepool system is revolutionary enough to be worth the trouble and we clearly disagree. I didn't get the same nuance from Misfortune dice that you do and that's OK, neither of us is wrong or right, but 3e clearly missed *something* in the process of revolutionizing or else more people would be playing it.

What FFG missed mainly was people's pocket books. The Core set was far too expensive. They produced a RPG to boardgame standards and with boardgame components and so the costs escalated beyond what many people wanted to pay. My previous warhammer group was such a case.That I am afraid, more than the dice or anything else, put people off 3rd edition. It didn't help that they screwed up on the marketing as well as the market research.

Pretty sure it's about more than just money. Lots of people bought the corebox after all, you don't need to own the entire product line to play it.

Pretty sure it's about more than just money. Lots of people bought the corebox after all, you don't need to own the entire product line to play it.

Maybe some people. But most people I know who didn't convert to 3rd were completely put off by the cost of the Core set, particularly when they found out it was only designed for a GM and three players. Whether that was a misconception or what I do not know, but that is my experience. I can think of seventeen people who were put off by the cost. Whether that is representative or not, I do not know. Funnily enough I can think of only four of them who are still playing 2nd edition now.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, 3e was in the top-5 for RPG sales for the first year, so we know the corebox sold a lot of copies.

If FFG is considering some changes in the WFRP line then maybe one of them should be selling the game as hardback books with optional boxes that contain cards and tokens. This way every player/gamer can customize the game the way he /she wants and buy only those expansions that fit him/her most.

Finally, someone is speaking English. It's clear from my exploration through this board that the community is split, and honestly there's no WrongBadFun, despite some heavy zealotry to the contrary. There are people that like the components and people who don't. Building and offering a modular system is not only smart, but i believe something that you will find to be more commonplace in the industry as a whole. Although I'm quite happy with my recent investment in 3E I would easily support and probably buy into a "Customize Your Game and STFU" edition if or when I had the need to migrate.

Let me just make sure I'm understanding the current narrative here:

- the WFRP fanbase is divided.

- to unite the fanbase, FFG should get everyone playing the same edition.

- that edition should be 3e.

- the only reason why over half the fanbase isn't playing 3e is because of packaging and marketing.

- 3e critics would really enjoy 3e if FFG could only make them come around to realize it.

- Ergo, if FFG repackages 3e once more the WFRP fanbase will be united.

More like:

- the WFRP fanbase is divided

- a new edition is only likely to divide it further, since the things some folks like about any given edition is exactly what other folks hate about that same edition

- that sucks for all of us, so for some reason we all argue about it and take it out on each other

Well, despite ragnar 63 and I having vastly different edition preferences we collaborate regularly on WFRP stuff. I live in the same city as valvorik and would play in his 3e game without hesitation. WimCon offers WFRP games in all 3 editions without any animosity or tribalism. So from my POV the fanbase is divided only in terms of what people on forums think 4e should look like. Sure it would be easier if everyone played using the same rules, but that's a utopian dream. It's great that 3e provides a different way of playing WFRP (and RPGs in general) for people who are into that style.

who said anything about uniting a fanbase? again, a modular 4e would allow people of all different playstyle preferences to build the experience they want.

- story mode core w/ support fluff

- narrative dice option

- percentile option

- components option

while not a spectacular example... last summer's d&d next material kicked out a scenario and then allowed you to download npc stats for your edition of choice. this is a step in the right direction.

it's a great way for everyone to have their cake and eat it too, now, is it fiscally sound for ffg to pursue that kind of ambitious system given such a small, niche demographic? who knows? more speculation.

Let me just make sure I'm understanding the current narrative here:

- the WFRP fanbase is divided.

- to unite the fanbase, FFG should get everyone playing the same edition.

- that edition should be 3e.

- the only reason why over half the fanbase isn't playing 3e is because of packaging and marketing.

- 3e critics would really enjoy 3e if FFG could only make them come around to realize it.

- Ergo, if FFG repackages 3e once more the WFRP fanbase will be united.

I'll have to go with no....you're not understanding the current narrative here. i can't really subscribe to what you've listed here. these kind of assertions, if anything, taunt and breed tribalism. just my opinion, though. no hate

You said yourself that the community was split just a few posts up. I realize you've just recently purchased 3e, but there's been a lot of griping on this forum previously about FFG mishandling the game. Admittedly my summary of the "current narrative" was largely a recap of the last page or two of this thread (mainly my back-and-forth with ragnar63) plus the context of previous comments here about FFG's "mismanagement" of 3e.

A modular approach like the one you describe above almost sounds like multiple separate games. AFAIK, D&D Next is a single game but with modular "layers" (e.g. people who don't want advanced weapon proficiency rules can remove them without disrupting balance). I'm not sure it's possible to create a game so modular that it satisfies everyone, but if it gets more people playing together and enlarges the customer base it would certainly be an improvement.

who said anything about uniting a fanbase? again, a modular 4e would allow people of all different playstyle preferences to build the experience they want.

- story mode core w/ support fluff

- narrative dice option

- percentile option

- components option

while not a spectacular example... last summer's d&d next material kicked out a scenario and then allowed you to download npc stats for your edition of choice. this is a step in the right direction.

it's a great way for everyone to have their cake and eat it too, now, is it fiscally sound for ffg to pursue that kind of ambitious system given such a small, niche demographic? who knows? more speculation.

I understand what you're talking about. Makes complete sense and there are several companies doing it already. Narrative core with multiple splats covering various mechanical approaches. It's a sound option.

How about something like:

WFRP Horror: Core game of losers with swords investigating eldritch terrors. Percentile system with skills and talents. Basic Bestiary. Magic rules for Hedge Wizards, Sorcerers and Lay Priests.

WFRP Heroic: Cinematic action in the Old World. Adds action cards and symbol dice options to basic game. Expanded Bestiary. Magic rules for Colleges of Magic and spellcasting Priests.

WFRP Chaos: Resist the lure of corruption. Introduces narrative symbol dice option and personality/corruption mechanics. Expanded Daemonic Bestiary. Characters can become Chaos Champions and turn against the party as NPCs.

As Herr Arnulfe says, despire our preferences over edition we still cooperate on WFRP stuff. In fact it was meeting at TIMCON that got us into trying to produce stuff at Liber Fanatica that is usable for both 2nd and 3rd edition.

The new Grunburg supplement from Liber Fanatica, when it gets through final layout, has been done for both 2nd and 3rd edition. It is possible to do, though direct conversion of NPC's does not always work very well. It has also added between 10-15% to the page count and this is just a supplement and therefore rules light.

Obviously if you base a new version around a narrative to which the GM adds the rules that he wants to use, then that will mean a couple of things:

1. The game wil have to be rules very light, otherwise the rule book will be reminiscent of UK tax law in size.

2. The rules will have to use either single dice / percentiles (d20/d100) or multiple dice added together (2d6/3d6/dice pool) as the mechanics of the dice will make the structure of the rules very different in either case.

I don't think you'd need to make the percentiles map directly to the symbol dice if using the tiered approach that I described above. The Action Cards are the only part that leverages symbol dice directly, and those would be optional add-ons. One could always use symbol dice instead of percentiles for freeform skill test narration if desired , but they would only be hard-coded to the action cards (as per current 3e).

In adventure text you'd just have a common notation for modifiers (e.g. "Hard" would mean either 2 challenge dice or -20%, depending on which die system you were using.

Therefore, would a fantasy rpg (i.e. warhammer 4th ed) based on the SW system benefit from its popularity? will it drag some of the SW fans to it? If the answers are a Yes, then a Warhammer 4th edition with an evolved SW system will also be a possibility, it probably won't please the actual fans, but a possibility nonetheless. I say "evolved" if only because the SW system, as it is, it is not made to be played in a context where hand to hand combat is very relevant.

The hand-to-hand point is a good one, I would like to see a little more variation in what you can do there, perhaps through opposed rolls or other strike or defensive options. SW is primarily a ranged weapon combat game (though I'm hoping Force and Destiny will maybe offer better dueling with the lightsaber rules). But I do view the SW game as a whole as a revolution. It's simple, no muss no fuss, and gets the job done. When I bought 3E I could see the revolution coming, but it wasn't quite there yet.

Maybe FFG should go GURPS-like with it: make a base/core that uses the same dice mechanic to resolve conflict, with different genres getting different skill lists, equipment, careers, talent trees, slight tweaks to certain mechanics, etc. Custom dice sets for each genre would complete the package.

I would see it like this:

There should be a Bigginers Box and then a Core Rulebook.

The Begginers Box would have genereted characters and basic rules to play with a adventure (it will look like those for SW RPGs).

Then they should release the core rulebook - hardcover. In it players nad GM would find all that they need to start so

After it they should do expansions for every province of the Empire that would cover the history of the province, some characteristic places with plot hooks, careers special for that place and enemies that are common there and those that can be found only there. At end of each such a supplement thare would be an adventure.

The careers should be a mix of level upgrading and careers transitions. For example You can play up to 10th level a Zealot or at 2nd/3rd level go to an Witch Hunter. So You could stay verylong at one career and take benefits form it using it upgades/Talent tree. Or change to a more specialised career and then go up-level there using the other Talent tree. Each career would have specific for that career tree with Talents/Up-grades. Each Talent should have a different cost to buy from those more common for 100XP and those more rare or powerful for 150 XP or eaven 200XP. Some Talents should work like the ones from Descent so to trigger it or use it You would have to suffer fatigue or stress. And some Talents would be once a day, once a battle and so on.

And careers should have some requirements to go into it like only for humans, only for wood elves, only for dwarfs ans so on. But also restrictions like You must be a 2nd/3rd or higher level Zealot to become a Witch Hunter or a Flaggelant.

It would be a littel similar to that what You see in SW but with a lot of more options and choices to make.

This mechanic would give players many options to customise there charaster the way they want and the designers a lot of open doors to create new content. Maybe even this way we would get this so expected elven book.

The dice should be a litte changed to fit more into a storytelling RPG game.

And at the end maybe FGG should consider making two line for WFRP - the base one white to play Order (Empire, Bretonia, Kislev, Dwarfs, Elves, Halflings) and a year or more after the first one release the second line - black to play Destruction races. Of course each line should have then there own begginers box.

This would really fit me, and maybe other players also,

Cheers and happy gaming

The careers should be a mix of level upgrading...

No No... NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

On a related note, here's how NOT to do it: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?711393-Earthdawn-4th-Edition-Announced-Today

Summary of above:

* minor fixes to the rules

* recycled stuff

* company bought out a name

* company treated fans like crap

Anyways, this thread really belongs on the House Rules discussion section at this point.

The careers should be a mix of level upgrading...

No No... NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Stop crying! By a mix of level up-grading I meant that characters should still have Ranks like in 3e. But Careers should look like those from SW but with options of going more specialised with Ranks. So one more time an example: You play a Zealot and You can play him up to Rank 10 gaining XP, buying special Zealot Talents and just being a Zealot. But then You reached Rank 3 and You got 3 options stay a Zealot, go to a Witch Hunter or go to a Flaggelant. Each of those has a different Talent tree and other options that make it special. So for players it will mean that You can stay on a career and just puch it to the limits or take from it what You want and fits Your character and then change it to a more specialised.

This system would mean that there is a set of basic careers and each of them has a Talent tree that lets You play up to Rank 10. But also each of the Basics has a set of Advanced careers that also have a different Talent trees. from that point of view I see it as an option for more different characters that players can create. You can have two Soldiers but each of them would be different and could choose different paths of advancing, have different Talents and take a different specialisations.

For me having more options and choises for players to make to create a hero is the base of a good game.

That just how I would see it.

Cheers

PS. I do not see it as house rules but at a general disccusion and a mix of ideas. Maybe FFG will like some of them and use it it the future for the good name of WFRP.