I've been looking through the Player's Guide and it's a quite different system. It requires lots of accessories and strange custom dice. I don't know If I like it yet or not but it seems there is something to do with cards, tokens, sheets... etc.I did not get the $80.00 core set but now I know I have to buy some more stuff now to play it anyway, but the books are nice quality from Fantasy Flight. The artwork sets a nice tone, but I feel this game is quite obscure because I never see it in game stores I always see the Warhammer miniature game instead. My local game store is stocked with D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder of course. It just feels like nobody I know plays it. Have you played it, and what do you think of this game?
I've TRIED making characters for this system once; I didn't like it. YMMV, but it didn't work well for me. Dark Heresy, OTOH, is pretty groovy. (SciFi game w/ a more streamlined character generation; based on Warhammer 40K.)
So... the short answer is "no, nobody likes that game," lol.
The RPG is fairly prominent on the shelves alongside the miniatures products in the Game Parlor in my area. Several of my tabletop group (myself included) have played it and as long as you embrace the genre, it was fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Warhammer FRP.
1st edition (1986) that is.
I didn't even care for 2ed - 1ed all the way for me.
I've been playing regularly (2x per month) in a WFRP 3rd edition group for over a year. I love it for the Warhammer setting AND the mechanics. My GM goes for a "rules-medium" approach and dispenses with a lot of the fiddly bits which streamlines w/out affecting game balance. The learning curve for the character advancement system is fairly steep but it's easy (easier?) once you get the hang of it.
The dice mechanics are really neat, imo.
That said I think 3rd edition can be quite a bear for a GM to run. But remember you can always start with bare-bones and add other mechanics later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1st Ed was the best everything else sucked. My first character was a rat catcher by profession.
1st Ed was the best everything else sucked. My first character was a rat catcher by profession.
Hey, so was mine!
Yeah I got the Player's guide as a gift I think you guys have talked me into selling it now lol.
I like Warhammer FRP.
1st edition (1986) that is.
I didn't even care for 2ed - 1ed all the way for me.
Rat catcher to Master Assassin was one of my characters paths.
Also everyone had Drive: Cart as a skill. Came up ONCE in a game.
I GMed the Doomstones campaign back in the day. It's was enjoyable and fun, magic system was very weak if I recall but I and my players enjoyed it.
NO IDEA WHAT 2ND EDITION IS LIKE, just to be clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Warhammer fantasy roleplay.
By which I mean...
I love first edition because it makes me nostalgic for gaming in my early teens with my "surrogate brothers", kim and olly(family friends where where a few years older than me.) Or later playing through the enemy within at university.
I love second edition, because it took the game I loved, and fixed on or two glaring flaws, extended the range of option the game provided greatly and gave the system a magic system that made more sense, even if i would have liked to see some of the classic forms of magic return within that frame work.
I even like 3rd edition, as an independant game with interesting mechanics. But what it isn't, to me, is WFRP.
Yeah I got the Player's guide as a gift I think you guys have talked me into selling it now lol.Sell it then get this Only $10+shipping
Also pick up this too Possibly the best set of supplemental rules for WFRP.
I appreciate the suggestions but I think I'm going to narrow down my amount of RPG's and get rid of the crap a build upon the systems I enjoy playing.
I've been looking through the Player's Guide and it's a quite different system. It requires lots of accessories and strange custom dice. I don't know If I like it yet or not but it seems there is something to do with cards, tokens, sheets... etc.I did not get the $80.00 core set but now I know I have to buy some more stuff now to play it anyway, but the books are nice quality from Fantasy Flight. The artwork sets a nice tone, but I feel this game is quite obscure because I never see it in game stores I always see the Warhammer miniature game instead. My local game store is stocked with D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder of course. It just feels like nobody I know plays it. Have you played it, and what do you think of this game?
I like it. The abbreviated system in the hard cover players handbook is easier to set-up and run than the large, full boxed system.
There are a lot of cool mechanics. It might be a matter of picking and choosing and starting with a slimmed down version.
For example, I would use a simplified stance rule rather than using the track for starters.
The main barrier to entry would be the dice. You have to use the special dice for the game.
I've run some one-ups at conventions, and people generally like it.
In service,
I just started up a game. The dice are awesome and if you allow computers at the table there are a few ones out there so you don't need to invest in them to try the game out. There are some quirks in the system, but after having only played 4 sessions I think I could introduce a new player to it faster than most other systems.
The dice also add nice story elements to the game and give the GM reason to introduce hooks into the game. For instance, rolling 2 stars of chaos while trying to buy trade goods, the GM had to come up with something interesting to happen. He decided that what we thought were legit goods turned out to be stolen on further inspection, giving us reason to take action.
I like that the game is fairly front loaded in power and growth is slow in your strengths. There is a noticable difference, but not so much that a few specialized new characters can't beat someone more skilled in their specialty. And you definetely don't have issues with abilities being forced to scale together, like skill points and BAB in D&D, so you can make an awesome smith or diplomat who isn't necessarily good at fighting. We ran into an interesting situation last session when we realized that even with penalties the party face was better at seducing guards while in drag than the female characters were.
The cards are not necessary. They are basically printed out versions of all of the abilities you select to make it easier to track what you have used and so you need the book less. Kinda like how people print out 4e abilities on cards. Expansion books only have the abilities on cards to prevent pdf pirating and destroy the used book market, which is annoying, but the base rulebooks are usable on their own.
The mechanics are lethal. Its very common for 1-2 hits to take you out of a fight and for you to spend a week healing from it. The game has some issues with defenses not scaling with offense, so it gets more lethal as you level too. Expect at least a few character deaths. For some people this is an issue. Personally, I find these to be features, though we have house ruled in a few extra defenses.
There are some ballance issues with the racial classes and I would recommend not letting people start as them. They should really be tier 2 classes. I haven't seen magic in action yet, but from others I hear it is fun and suicidal, as it should be.
I've played about a dozen sessions of 3E warhammer and enjoyed the system. However, normally I gm. I gmed a couple of sessions of this system and didn't really enjoy the system from the gm side of the screen, even though I liked playing it. If I were to gm a warhammer game, I'd probably do it with the 2E system (which is a straight forward percentile based mechanic). I feel like 3E warhammer compared to 2E war hammer is sort of like 4E DnD to 3E Dnd. It is a decent game, but it has a very different feel from previous editions. The combat action cards are very similar to 4E powers, and it feels quite gamey, but due to the custom dice it is quite narrative as well.
I'm not a big fan of how they laid out the rules in the boxed set, I found their presentation a little confusing. However once you get the hang of the system it plays fairly smoothly. I also wasn't a big fan of all the different tokens and action cards that go with the game. It is a pain to set up, and somewhat annoying at the table to keep track of all the different components. I much prefer to just a have a simple 1-2 page character sheet, (which is one of my complaints about 4E DnD as well). If my former gm (who has gotten very busy with a PHd ever decides he wants to run some more Warhammer 3E, I'd happily play it again, but I have no plans to run this system again).
The star wars game uses similar dice mechanics, but it looks like they've cleaned it up a bit, so that you don't need all the finicky cards and tokens.
I used to tease my GM because he would spend a half hour at the start of each session, searching through decks of cards to find power cards he would need for different creatures. Set up always took a long time. That being said, I still had a lot of fun playing that game, and I'd happily play it some more.
|
Never tried 1E.
3E for some odd reason did not click with me. I wanted to like it never could wrap my head around it.
I got into the game with 2E. A decent system. Not the kind for those used to playing D&D and rushing in. Those that play like that find out soon enough that it's very easy to die imo. My main issue with the system is that starting values for characters to hit anything are too damn low imo. Played a few sessions and enjoyed the system. Except more often than not. The dice were against me and the group and more often than not sometimes combat took too long. Given that it's a roll under system it's quite easy to not hit anything. With the fantasy version of the game it was easy to ignore. With the 40K rpgs not so much. I rememeber being told that to hot more often one had to get in close to the target. All fine and dandy. Except it makes specializing in any long range weapon kind of useless if I have to close with the enemy to get bonuses to hit. My fond wish is to see a new edition using a updated 2E percentile system with higher starting values.
The fiction as well for the world is pretty good. Nothing beats reading about the adventures of a Troll Slayer and his human sidekick. Getting better and stronger. While the Demonslayer a that point is getting depressed that he will die of old age. Instead of dying in battle.
|
I played 1st ed. quite a lot back in the days, with an excellent GM that ran the whole Doomstones campaign with a flair for the grittier side of the game.
He crafted the crystals from cardboard and collecting them during the sessions was very exiting.
Recently I got involved with 3rd ed, which I collected maniacally - missing only the PoD products, too expensive to get overseas - and my group plans to play the game from next fall onwards, after the summer break (right now enjoying a short sci-fi campaign with a customised 3:16 ruleset).
As I'll be the GM, the roadmap is to have a few introductory adventures and then diving straight into the very awesome new Enemy Within campaign.
I played in 1e. I always enjoyed it. It was fun, but deadly. You or your enemies could be one-shotted. I gm'd 2e and the system was easy to learn for both the players and me. Personally, I prefer 1d100 system in 2e vs the d6 system in 1e. anytime I have to roll a d6, it always rolls the opposite of what I need. (That groin shot crit kept coming up.) To me, 3e is not warhammer fantasy. I don't understand why Fantasy Flight could not use the same system they use for their 40k games in fantasy, by replacing the psychic power system with a magic system.
I really liked the look of WHFRP (the third edition), though we didnt end up playing it. The different mechanics and more abstract combats were a plus for me. The downside to me was that they had so few iconic enemies, it got really hard to read yet another "No way! Ratmen under the city? That's just a myth!" storyline (or similar). Perhaps I just didnt get into it deeply enough and it wouldnt have been such a big deal in play, but the enemies became quite repetitive to me just from reading the adventures/campaign sourcebooks.
I couldnt imagine running a very long campaign without it becoming samey and that means learning the new mechanics is a much bigger barrier.
I played it once...I did not hate it...though I did not like it.
All the accessories( the combat cards...and the track for I forgot exactly what) seemed to just make it a little to complex with out adding anything to it.
The custome dice also bothers me little...not so much in game...more in I have to buy yet more dice to play kinda of feeling.
I would probably play it again if I get a chance...but I don't see myself investing in it to actualy be able to run the game.
We did a round of 1e. It lasted long enough for me to get the feeling like the longer you play the more one character ends up looking like every other character. I prefer systems where the longer you last the more distinct you and your contributions are.
Used to love 1st Edition, especially the character careers during creation.
Haven't really played 2nd Edition, although I have a copy somewhere I keep meaning to look through some time.
3rd Edition came out under my radar, and I'm quite content to leave it there seeing as I haven't even looked at those 2nd Ed books yet.
I've been looking through the Player's Guide and it's a quite different system. It requires lots of accessories and strange custom dice. I don't know If I like it yet or not but it seems there is something to do with cards, tokens, sheets... etc.I did not get the $80.00 core set but now I know I have to buy some more stuff now to play it anyway, but the books are nice quality from Fantasy Flight. The artwork sets a nice tone, but I feel this game is quite obscure because I never see it in game stores I always see the Warhammer miniature game instead. My local game store is stocked with D&D 4th edition and Pathfinder of course. It just feels like nobody I know plays it. Have you played it, and what do you think of this game?
I like it. The one consistent complaint I have heard has been about the need for the special dice. I have plenty of dice. you just have to share the dice pool, or You can buy an App for the dice for $2. So, that is not really an issue.
I've run a couple of demo sessions at monthly open gaming events here in the DC area.
The mechanics are interesting. First, the dice give a narrative flair showing why the roll succeeded or failed. Plus, you can have good or bad things that come out of a challenge whether you succeed or fail. That is kind of cool.
The character types are very flexible in terms of skills, etc.
The system is deeply steeped in the Warhammer world. The system would not be easily transported to another world.
That all said, it has been very difficult to find players. Not sure why ... I could not get a group together to try the new Star Wars game fron FFG either. Almost every other game I put up a notice for gets lots of responses. (I am running three ongoing gaming groups right now. My advice is have your kids early in life, and then your middle years have plenty of time for leisure and fun! ;-D. )
In service,
Rich.
PS I revamped my WWW site, check it out the Original Dr Games Site since 1993
First off, this isn't a board game. It's an RPG and much more than the other systems out there and ...
Wow Chris! Amazing post! Nicely done!
In service,
Rich
|
|
Anyways, from what I read here was a bunch of people that never played it
I have played it. Just because I'm not heaping a ton of praise about the system does not mean I did not play it. I have also played serious games as well. I like and enjoy it. Combats can be fast if players hit the creatures. The starting values to hit are just way too low. Too often combats espcially if the dice gods are fickle can take a long time. It's the curse imo of a roll under percentile system. I can respect that you like the game. Yet coming hear and saying that people don't play the game because they are not universally praising it is just a mistake imo. I like Rifts and have played the game. It's a usuable system yet just like WHRP it has it's flaws. Besides that I agree with everything you posted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, this isn't a board game. It's an RPG and much more than the other systems out there and here's why. You spend less time fuddling through books and arguing over rules because it's all in front of you and rules are so simple once you have a few sessions under your belt that there is no arguing. No searching...you roleplay. That's it. You play your character with a fast and brutal combat system along with similar situations in social areas, and this encourages your players to spend more time telling the story than pushing pieces around on a grid map saying "I'll cast web here using my metamagic feat shape spell to avoid having it hit my friend here. Damn, what's the casting time on that? Did I have that even prepared? Is there a component to cast the spell? Sorry guys I need a minute to find this." This is what slows games down and it's boring.
Everything you have described above applies to 1st and 2nd ed WFRP. In fact, it more true of those editions.
Why?
- No dice pool assembly
- No searching through 'power cards' trying to work out what your going to do.
- No juggling tokens
Large chucks of this advantage of the 3rd edition come purely from having some of the basic housekeeping of a character done for you, and only comes from having purchased the the core box, rather than the books, a choice with its own downsides see later)
And to those who say it's not 1st or 2nd edition, I'm glad it's not. If I wanted to play either of those...I would. This brings the game to where it should be...the present.
There is are good reasons that first edition survived as a relatively popular and actively played game for a decade without any serious support. It is one of the great classics of roleplaying, and a thoroughly robust system for its age. People loved it, people still love it. It wasn't without perfect, but its was at least as good as Call of Cthulhu, and in my opinion infinitely system to pretty much everything other than CoC that happened before the advent of Vampire: the Masquerade.
Second editions took a few elements of 3.0 dnd's design, along with a focus on fixing the issues with 1st edition, generated a workhorse of a system. WFRP2nd Ed is arguably the most robust system of the 2000.
It may be modern design, but it isn't good modern design. Fate Core is an example of good modern design. And what I really want is a modern game, I'll go play that.
I'm not content using old dice mechanics in a stale fashion that still has referencing to the rulebook for how many modifiers you get.
I am the first to admit that the dice pool system of 3rd ed it interesting narrative. I really like the non-binary paradigm, as well as a few other bits of modern design(many of which could have been played up far more in truth).
But claiming 3rd ed is a system where you spend less time looking in the books at rules, than say 2nd edition, is laughable.
80-90% of all actions in WFRP 2nd are resolved reference to anything other than a d100, couple of entries on the character sheets, and a damage roll in some cases.
By constrast 70%+ of actions in 3rd edition requires reference to the rules governing a specific exception. Every single use of a action card, is a reference to the rule book (the fact that it isn't in the book, makes it not part of the body of the rules. in fact if you own the rulebooks rather than the starter set, checking the rule book is exactly what you'll be doing constantly, if you have't done proper house keeping on you character.)
And is the game still brutal? Yes, just as brutal. You will die...chances are a lot just like the old one. If your character lives to actually retire as a higher rank character...you should be heralded...forever.
Oh, sure, compared to a lot of games, 3rd edition is pretty brutal.
But it is nothing like as brutal or uncaring as 2nd ed. A beggar with a rusty knife can kill the most powerful knight with a single jab of the blade. It is even a relatively common for said beggar to seriously injure said knight(it should be noted that seriously injure).
3rd editon being dice pool based, has a bell curve distribution, making such extremes much rarer, and while I haven't set down and checked it out, I am pretty sure that a beggar with a dagger cannot reasonably be expected to kill a starting character, let alone a high rank combat character.
I've been a GM for the system for 4 years now, so I think I may be of some assistance here. First off, if you've played the games a couple times, chances are you still won't like it. The game is extremely rules intensive at the beginning and it can be a lot to take in because it takes what you are used to and throws it to the side. I'd personally ignore all the people saying negative things here as they either downloaded a pirated PDF and just said it's bad or played a game and discounted it away because they couldn't power game to their hearts content. Onto the game itself.
The game has SIGNIFICANT barriers to entry.
- The rule books in the core set are horribly structured and written (after 5 read through, and years of gaming experience, i didn't actually understand how most of the rule actually worked until I found community resources that actually explained them)
-the choice of colouration for the dice was a nightmare for me as a colour blind individual.
- the system is HUGELY EXPENSIVE, even compared to other GW licenced roleplaying games. For small portion of the cost, you can just buy a copy of 2nd edition, and your covered for years worth of play. It is so bad, that for the price of the beginners box, The Adventurer's Toolkit and The Winds of Magic(which almost brings you to a point where you can play everything from the core 2nd edition book; though hedge wizards are still missing), you can get a core 2nd ed book in physical form, and the cream of 2nd ed in PDF.
-Difficult to transport. On of the biggest reasons I haven't played more is that I don't drive and we play at a friends house. Lugging the box around is a nightmare unless you drive, and even then, it is inconvenient. By constrast, I can run 2nd with a single book, which barely gets openned
- much more rules heavy than previous editions.
It will take 3-4 sessions per player to understand the rules to the point of never having to reference...never referencing you say? You've played Pathfinder, 3.5, GURPS, Paladium, BRP, whatever. I'm sure you've had a lot of referencing what things do.
I've played WFRP for year, and while I do reference the rule for critical hits table, that is about the only time I ever do it. And I don't go digging through the book for it any more than you do, i'd on my DM's screen. It happens a couple of times a session.
Call of Cthulhu, in the last ten sessions I have run, I have referenced the rules once. For the resistance table. I didn't dig through the book for it, it is on my keepers screen.
3rd edition, almost every action I can take, requires reading an individual set of conditional rules.
Let me refresh your memory. "What does my skill do?" "How does this spell work?" "How the hell do I grapple again?" "How many modifiers do I get for that?" Throw in rules lawyers and you have the reason I hate those games. Does WFRP solve this? Oh yes it does. After 4 sessions players will not be referencing anything except what is on the table in front of them. Everything they can do is right there. All skills, actions, talents, temporary conditions, diseases, insanities, magic spells, wounds, critical effects, magic items, terrain features...is right in front of them. There is absolutely zero time wasted fiddling through books. Now onto something I tested.
Again, this can be achieve with ANY game, through good house keeping.
But while there may not be time wasted through going through books, there is plenty wasted in this case by going through cards.
Leveling up...well every single game session advance further gaining new skills, talents, more hit points, actions...did you read that? Every session. Players get to build their character with advances constantly.
No different to WFRP 2nd edition in this regards, very close to CoC and Fate.
None of this is to say ofcourse that it is a bad game, just that I personally think that A, 2nd ed is better, and B, that your massively overstating how awesome and revolutionary 3rd ed. Specifically, in most of the areas you highlight, second edition does better or does to a greater extent.
There is a lot to like about 3rd edition. The informational density of dice pools for instance. But at the end of the day, it isn't the game I grew up playing. It isn't the Game used to play the enemy within. In short, it isn't WFRP.
I'd really like to pick up the 3rd edition box set, gently used is fine, biggest priority for now is to pick it up on the cheap.
Anyone have a complete set you would like part with, shoot me a message.
I'd probably be willing to part with it, you in the UK by any chance?
I'd probably be willing to part with it, you in the UK by any chance?
Unfortunately no. Am in the US.
meh, little point then, sorry.
But overall, it is a stale system. The game world is amazing, I'm only saying the system is boring.I don't think there is such a thing as a boring or stale system in any roleplaying game, just dull GMs and unimaginative players...
Personally, I'd have to agree. Some of the more fun systems I have are ones that are over 20 years old. The only "staleness" is that nobody has them or plays them any more.
If a ruleset works, I see no reason to constantly reinvent it.
|
|
If I ever ran 2E I would definitely add about 10-20% to the starting weapon values. With a players who are not lucky at the tabe combat can take forever. It's no easy to roll low on percentile dice. I rather get more done at the game table then spend too long with a combat.
A older rpg may still be usable. Sometimes they can be improved upon as well. PF is a continuation of 3.5. Which is a updated version of 3.0. Which is a updated version of 2E. Sometimes RPGs should stay the same and sometimes they should be revised.
I bought dark heresey 5 or 6 years ago and have yet to play it...
|
|
If I ever ran 2E I would definitely add about 10-20% to the starting weapon values. With a players who are not lucky at the tabe combat can take forever. It's no easy to roll low on percentile dice. I rather get more done at the game table then spend too long with a combat.
Not sure this is the best approach in my opinion. In Warhammer normal people are normal people not D&D like combat gods from day one. By adding +10-20% you effectively make the character 2-4 advances above starting. If you are willing to do that why not just hand out 2-4 free advances and let the players decide where the +5%'s go? What if I would rather be better at Hiding than Fighting?
Even without doing this +10% for aim, +10% for 2 on 1, etc. - there is +20% without giving new characters free advances. Warhammer isn't about a fair one on one fights, it is about stacking the odds in the your favour. And if they aren't then running might be a better option. Trying a D&D-like approach to Warhammer is a sure fire way to end up rolling a new character.
Depends if you want a High Fantasy or Grim Fantasy feel I guess.
Just comments,
S.
|
|
Not sure this is the best approach in my opinion. In Warhammer normal people are normal people not D&D like combat gods from day one. By adding +10-20% you effectively make the character 2-4 advances above starting. If you are willing to do that why not just hand out 2-4 free advances and let the players decide where the +5%'s go? What if I would rather be better at Hiding than Fighting?Even without doing this +10% for aim, +10% for 2 on 1, etc. - there is +20% without giving new characters free advances. Warhammer isn't about a fair one on one fights, it is about stacking the odds in the your favour. And if they aren't then running might be a better option. Trying a D&D-like approach to Warhammer is a sure fire way to end up rolling a new character.
Depends if you want a High Fantasy or Grim Fantasy feel I guess.
Just comments,
S.
I might take your approach instead. Makes more sense imo. It's having played a few sessions with bad dice rolls fights can sometimes take too long. Rolling low on percentile dice is not easy with low starting values. Sure one can get in close yet imo it defeats the purpose of using a ranged weapon if too get a bonus I have to get closer to a fight.
Average starting human characters hit just under a 3rd of times.
A bit more than a 3rd of the time if they have a focus on combat.
This stack up to more than half the time aim and out numbering into account.
Not sure that is something I would define as 'hard to roll'.
It's now available on major sale from FFG. They appear to be dumping it on the market.
Here is an online /downloadable dice roller: https://googledrive.com/host/0B27SCDR38xFuNE96TGV4S1Jjdlk/rollers/wfrp3e/#
You can calculate your hit percentages on that dice roller (for 3rd edition..which is about 75% hit every round..unlike 2e, which was a lot less and had the whiff-factor quite prevalent).
jh
Loved 1st and second edition!
the world is better than the system in my opinion...
but what a world!
GRU
I played the old first edition some while ago and liked VERY much. Don't know the FFG Version.