If no one joins you at your table they have no one to blame but themselves Cheers.

Well done, I would just add re Lure of Power and retainers, "Do you want your own Baldrick to support your charming Blackadder Fop? He comes in this box (the plastic wrapping keeps his odour in)"

I made a few changes based upon feedback in my current group. I've added the following:

When buying Lure of Power you can now simply choose to start as a character with either the noble or social trait (except for commoner, because it doesn't really fit with the theme of this set) or any basic career that is included in this set. These characters will also begin with one extra advance as well.

When buying Winds of Magic you can now simply choose to start as a basic character with academic trait (except for initiate, since it would conflict with the Signs of Faith perk) or any basic character included in this set.

I've been thinking about it and have just put this question to my group, but I thought I'd also get your opinions too. I'm considering adding a perk to Lure of Power for those who don't take a noble and therefore cannot get the retainer:

• If you start as a non-noble character with the "Social" trait, then instead of a retainer you may begin the game with connections in the underworld or city bureaucracy (your choice).

I've made another update, this time to Signs of Faith. Players can now choose to start play as a Zealot (again, I'm surprised I missed this one) and can choose their first insanity.

Pretty sure they call this "Pay to Win" in online gaming circles.

Anything that would give a player an added in game advantage based on his RL currency spend is just wrong , no matter which way you look at it.

Why should a player who just bought a book get an added advantage over someone who prepared a detailed background, outlined their character personality, provided a wealth of plot hooks for the GM to create a great campaign and may even be a better player?

Also, character advancement in WFRP3 is way too fast in comparison to the previous editions and moves more towards High Fantasy because of the need to scale up adversaries so quickly.

I strongly oppose this concept. It is contrary to the spirit of Tabletop RPG's.

I can understand your perspective. At a private table I would be more likely to agree with you, but then again I might not.

If a player joined a group in which the average character had seven advances would the GM start the new payer with zero? This is not a trick question because there is no right answer. If you start them at zero they might feel weak compared to the others and that they can never catch up. If you give them the advances the other players might feel like they didn't earn it and resent you giving everything away.

The bottom line is that everyone should have fun. That's really all there is to it. If everyone understands that, and if you communicate that goal clearly and respectfully, then the above problem should never really come up.

I run these games at my friendly local game store. We use their space to play. I would like for the store to be successful and to continue to welcome roleplayers. If people come in, use the space and spend nothing, the store will of course need to prioritize. They will need to use that space for games that lead to sales or risk going out of business.

This perk system stimulates sales, but only if the game I run is deemed by the players to be a worthy value for admittedly steep cost Warhammer presents. So far they have been extremely positive on that point which is nice. I understand that you would never participate in such a game, but my players understand my reasons and see it as a fair deal.

As to the issue of paying for success, I have no real interest in players starting from scratch in this game. My demo characters (you can find them in another thread) are made with seven advances. Purchasing the game and expansions also leads to roughly seven. This allows my players to start at an equal level to these demo characters and thus gives them an equivalent play experience. I have no problem keeping things balanced and no one has felt slighted.

When I run a demo I provide everything, but my demo characters do not ever gain experience. If a player wants to create a character they must buy their own components. The issue of paying for advantage is already built into Warhammer because a player who buys Omens of War or Lure of Power will have access to things other players will not. However, this doesn't break the game. Instead it merely allows the player to explore a more specific type of character.

You've very clearly stated your opposition to the perks. I understand why. Clearly this is not a game you would want to be associated with. This is perfectly fine. None of that really matters. What does matter is that my players are having a lot of fun and my local store is happy to have us there. So long as those things are true I'm satisfied with the perks I've given.

My phone cut off the last part of my post:

You've said these perks are contrary to the spirit of roleplaying. I believe the spirit of roleplaying is to have fun telling exciting stories with your friends. These perks do no harm to that spirit. If anything, they let you build the exact kind of character you'd like to play.

Some players enjoy games about slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff. That violates the spirit of what I think of as a roleplaying game but it is no less valid of a way to play. If a player gets an awesome weapon in such a game and I don't, we have a rift in power. What does it matter how it happened? If he purchased it, found it, was best friends with the GM, was the first to call dibs... the fact is that all games have the potential for a rift in character power. It is up to the GM to keep things fair and equitable.

From what you've said you seem to feel that the sanctity (for want of a better term) of the game is violated because the players didn't slog through every advance, but I have no interest in forcing them through that slog if they don't want to. My game is fully prepared for characters who are more advanced but will also accommodate weaker characters. Their stories will still be engaging and the players will still have a hell of a good time. To me, THAT'S the spirit of a roleplaying game.

I can understand your perspective. At a private table I would be more likely to agree with you, but then again I might not.

If a player joined a group in which the average character had seven advances would the GM start the new payer with zero? This is not a trick question because there is no right answer. If you start them at zero they might feel weak compared to the others and that they can never catch up. If you give them the advances the other players might feel like they didn't earn it and resent you giving everything away.

The bottom line is that everyone should have fun. That's really all there is to it. If everyone understands that, and if you communicate that goal clearly and respectfully, then the above problem should never really come up.

Fun is the goal, I agree.

I run these games at my friendly local game store. We use their space to play. I would like for the store to be successful and to continue to welcome roleplayers. If people come in, use the space and spend nothing, the store will of course need to prioritize. They will need to use that space for games that lead to sales or risk going out of business.

This perk system stimulates sales, but only if the game I run is deemed by the players to be a worthy value for admittedly steep cost Warhammer presents. So far they have been extremely positive on that point which is nice. I understand that you would never participate in such a game, but my players understand my reasons and see it as a fair deal.

I had already got the impression, as you mention, that your scheme is about keeping your local store funded and your seats there assured.

As to the issue of paying for success, I have no real interest in players starting from scratch in this game. My demo characters (you can find them in another thread) are made with seven advances. Purchasing the game and expansions also leads to roughly seven. This allows my players to start at an equal level to these demo characters and thus gives them an equivalent play experience. I have no problem keeping things balanced and no one has felt slighted.

When I run a demo I provide everything, but my demo characters do not ever gain experience. If a player wants to create a character they must buy their own components. The issue of paying for advantage is already built into Warhammer because a player who buys Omens of War or Lure of Power will have access to things other players will not. However, this doesn't break the game. Instead it merely allows the player to explore a more specific type of character.

If someone doesn't pay for a boxed set they can only play a Pre Gen character that never progresses. Enough said. I disagree that everyone needing to own their own copy of everything is built into the game, eg Core is for "up to 4 Players".

You've very clearly stated your opposition to the perks. I understand why. Clearly this is not a game you would want to be associated with. This is perfectly fine. None of that really matters. What does matter is that my players are having a lot of fun and my local store is happy to have us there. So long as those things are true I'm satisfied with the perks I've given.

You are correct, I wouldn't play in any game where I had to buy books to play my own character or be limited to a Pre Gen that doesn't gain XP.

You've said these perks are contrary to the spirit of roleplaying. I believe the spirit of roleplaying is to have fun telling exciting stories with your friends. These perks do no harm to that spirit. If anything, they let you build the exact kind of character you'd like to play.

This scheme actually creates a "barrier to entry" to those that want to play without having to spend RL money.

I withdraw my comment of it being "Pay to Win" and instead change it to "Pay to Play" . I called it "Pay to Win" when you left me the impression that some at the table would have 7 advances and others none. Now you've explained that it's either a choice of a non-advancing character or purchasing a boxed set it's realistically a case of "Pay to Play" (a non Pre Gen).

I dare say it even alienates people from playing.

A GM requesting players to Pay to Play is contrary to the spirit of playing RPG's.

Some players enjoy games about slaughtering monsters and taking their stuff. That violates the spirit of what I think of as a roleplaying game but it is no less valid of a way to play. If a player gets an awesome weapon in such a game and I don't, we have a rift in power. What does it matter how it happened? If he purchased it, found it, was best friends with the GM, was the first to call dibs... the fact is that all games have the potential for a rift in character power. It is up to the GM to keep things fair and equitable.

You mention power rift, this scheme instils a power rift before play even commences. Pay or take a non advancing Pre Gen. A situation much worse than "best friend of the GM" etc.

From what you've said you seem to feel that the sanctity (for want of a better term) of the game is violated because the players didn't slog through every advance, but I have no interest in forcing them through that slog if they don't want to. My game is fully prepared for characters who are more advanced but will also accommodate weaker characters. Their stories will still be engaging and the players will still have a hell of a good time. To me, THAT'S the spirit of a roleplaying game.

If your game is fun then it shouldn't be a "slog". I don't have an issue with advanced characters, (although I will mention it does make WFRP3 play more like D&D (High Fantasy) than earlier editions).

In summary:

My issue with your scheme isn't about the inclusion of advanced characters.

Absolutely RPG's are about fun and story first.

The "sanctity", as you put it, is violated when you ask players to buy supplements in order to play their own XP-gaining character, or else play an XP locked Pre Generated character.

I do not think it is wrong to expect players to buy into a game. I think it is a basic adult responsibility to pay for your entertainment. I think it is wrong for players to simply expect a GM to foot the cost for everything unless the GM wishes to do so. I have already purchased everything for this game so this isn't an issue, hence the pre-gens.

If it were a game with my close friends then I wouldn't mind sharing my set, but this is a public game. I am introducing the game to people, showing them a fun time, and helping give the game a local foothold. That last part doesn't happen if people don't buy in. Furthermore, if a player ever demanded that I buy things so he can play, I would not invite him to the table. For a player to angrily insist that any expectation for him to either play a locked pre-gen or buy into the game is wrong would be incredibly rude and I'd politely advise him join a different game and introduce him to the other GMs. As you've said, you would never be put in that position because you would never consider playing, which benefits us both.

As to the barrier to entry, so far everyone is having a great time. The rules are taught so there is no barrier there. The pre-gens are very good so no one has felt that they required advancement to have fun, so there is no barrier there either (many players make their first characters to mimic the demo characters). The fact that most of my players choose to buy in and are excited about it tells me there is no barrier with the people I've met. I personally think the game shines at the five to seven advance mark, which is why I set things up the way I have.

To pay for a game is something that any mature adult should be prepared to do. Yes, there will always be people who try to torrent everything and sponge off of their friends books and supplies just as there will be GMs who are okay with this. As I've said, this isn't that kind of game. I have no problem taking the time to teach the game and discuss the game, but I am not about to loan my books out or have them keep my cards from week to week, nor has anyone expected me to do so.

You seem to be extremely angry and offended over what is ultimately the player being given a very flexible choice: they can buy nothing and play a very capable pre-gen that all of my players have come to love (over the past year or two no one has even asked about advancing them), or buy in and control your own destiny. Or you can play a different game altogether (the Pathfinder guys are two tables away).

You've said the sanctity "is violated when you ask players to buy supplements in order to play their own XP-gaining character, or else play an XP locked Pre Generated character." The only reason to feel this specific sanctity is violated is if character advancement is the ultimate goal of your game and if you do not wish to ever actually purchase that game. Luckily, this hasn't yet been a problem. The second demo I ran went a dozen sessions in a continuing story arc that spanned from Nuln to Mordheim. By the end, only two players had bought into the system, but all of the players who used the demo characters had a blast. For them (and myself) it was never about leveling up and becoming super-powerful. It was about the story. That's why they showed up. That's why players are willing to buy into the game and make characters with unique stories that they can shape from scratch.

The current demo went so well that all six of my players wanted to do a campaign (which I'm prepping now). They've all bought in to the system and have no regrets. That doesn't sound like they've hit a barrier to me.

In the end, you don't seem to have any questions about how this works or why people are enjoying it. You've made your decision about it. You said you don't have an issue with the inclusion of advanced characters. You instead seem to be offended at the thought of having to pay for something (forgive me if that sounds harsh but that's what I'm reading). If the perks were ruining the game then no one would play and the perceived problem will ultimately solve itself, right? But that hasn't happened so we will keep gaming until it does.

Tone is hard to gauge, I'm neither angry nor upset nor offended, I'm just voicing an opinion to a scheme on the forum.

You keep mentioning mature adults pay for games, I have no problem with this, the game is made for up to 4 players, you have the box, so someone paid for it already. Also, players can be encouraged to buy things on their own accord without you coercing them. People can still become a part of the WFRP3 community without being coerced into buying supplements so the GM will give them XP. It's not unreasonable to think a player could gain XP without having to fork out cash.

The players can hand their cards back at the end of a session, they don't need to take them home, no one has suggested you loan anything. There is also a Rules Lite section included as written by FFG for the game specifically.

No one said a player would demand the GM buy things.You share what you have, you can't play what you don't have.

I'd laugh in your face if you said to me "come and play my campaign but unless you buy all the stuff you won't get XP" ROFL. Then I'd go play at that other Pathfinder table you mention (despite hating d20 systems) and probably buy a pathfinder book, because they encourage new players not fleece them.

The only person here suggesting piracy is you. What's a torrent?

I can not verify your alleged "success with players" over the internet beyond what you say, I take everything that's said with a grain of salt. You may as well say you're Justin Bieber.

All the best with it.

Thank you for your interest in my game.

I've spent thousands of dollars and countless hours over the last few years buying/learning/running systems and providing food for people that show up to my games. If they can't be buggered to spend a few bucks on a Core book or at the very least grab some pdf's then they generally don't get invited back. It's not unreasonable to expect a little buy in.

I think the perks system is not a bad idea in a store environment where you are in fact offering a demo of games available for sale. It makes you a salesman in a way, but I see no wrong here.

Personally, I play with my friends since high school, and we have a great group of mature players. I GM and buy all the stuff, but they buy me beer and everyone's happy.

It makes you a salesman.

Or a Pimp? At least make it official and just apply to work for them.

Steve, I'm emailing you regarding some DLSS demos that I have.

It makes you a salesman.

Or a Pimp? At least make it official and just apply to work for them.

Well, I can see the issue if this was a home game but it sounds to me like this gamification(?) of related purchases is for a very specific environment - a mate's store. I don't think this is about pimping ffg, it's about keeping a venue for those players to go to afloat.

I am not clear on what the spirit of roleplay really is, nor whether it should or shouldnt be monetized.

But people rocking up to a shop weekly for a few hours hosted entertainment and never giving back sounds contrary to spirit of running a business.

It makes you a salesman.

Or a Pimp? At least make it official and just apply to work for them.

Heavy. I think the OP light hearted tone suggests his agenda is to add another level of fun and interest to his -demo- games

Well, I can see the issue if this was a home game but it sounds to me like this gamification(?) of related purchases is for a very specific environment - a mate's store. I don't think this is about pimping ffg, it's about keeping a venue for those players to go to afloat.

I am not clear on what the spirit of roleplay really is, nor whether it should or shouldnt be monetized.

But people rocking up to a shop weekly for a few hours hosted entertainment and never giving back sounds contrary to spirit of running a business.

I believe the phrase he prefers is "pretty strong words".

And anyways it's about demo games, inherently static sessions with transient players. It's hard to get people invested in that, so why not reward those who do?. I mean they are playing in a room with walls lined with product...but let's not sully the spirit by making that too blatant... I'd have to laugh in the face of anyone who felt so politicised by game demos that they would demonstratively go play and buy a game they didn't like to make a contrary point. (Actually I wouldn't, I'm not that way inclined, I'd grudgingly admire that stance while still thinking "what a knob")

..Twodogs are you for real?

Steve have you actually had anyone react poorly, or is everyone like "...sure, whatever"

So far I've had one of two reactions from players. They either enjoy playing the demo characters as-is and don't have any interest in buying anything (which is fine), or they get really into the game, buy in and make a character. Either way they have fun.

My current table is made up of five guys who bought a pile of stuff. They asked me to run a campaign for them (at least ten sessions, but probably more). They made characters last session and we played the first "100% player made character" game tonight. It was a lot of fun.

The first time I ever encountered any push back, much less rage, was here. Up to now everyone I've played with has either been happy to play for free or has enjoyed strategically building their characters with their perks. It surprised me that there could be so much venom. Regardless, we still have fun.

As for my getting hold of all of the sweet, SWEET FFG WARHAMMER CASH, well clearly this is a fiscally responsible plan. There are literally SEVERAL dollars to be made here. Finally, I can buy that yacht.

With regards to becoming an employee via running a game in a store in Louisiana (well known as a hotbed for role-playing games)? Of COURSE I expect FFG will have scouts in my store. Applying for a job with a resume is for suckers. This way is much faster.

P.S. Emirikol, I'd love to get that demo stuff from you. Can you send it to me?

I don't have time for freeloaders or prima donna players. If they want to campaign with us, they'd better be ready to buy the books and contribute. If my players don't like someone, they're out. I've had this discussion on RPG.net, but players aren't hard to find and hence, I'm sorry, but don't really count in the equation except to either contribute to the fun or go home. Meanwhile, GM's are hard to find. GMs that are actively attempting to grow the hobby are even harder to find and are the most valuable of all.

Just to add my opinion: your perk system sounds great Steve.

Thanks.