Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

besides, following the RPG.net thread on the subject, one comes accross some peculiar views on the subject... like that on posts 121 (read the end of it) that would explain how the dimissions of Ryan from the GAMA board might have a lot to do with the reviews in question...
i think the link to that page is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=13&pp=10

i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?

Jonny Nexus said:

It doesn't matter if a review is positive, if it says things that aren't actually true - especially when those things falsely imply that the game is inferior in certain areas to another game, a game which the author of the review had a hand in developing. In that case, the "positive things" come across as actually being part of the fraud, because they make it more likely that a reader will believe the mistruths.

i.e. If I was going to tell some lies about someone, I'd surround those lies with a load of vague complements to make it sound like I was "trying to be fair".

Click to expand...

After all, you have to get behind someone before you can stab him in the back...

EDIT: Not that I am suggesting Ryan was necesarily doing that. It's just that JN's post reminded me of the phrase. It's a quote from 'Yes Minister', BTW.


glass.

I think we are all getting sidetracked from the main point here.

The main point is, of course, that any of you who don't have WFRP 2E already should go and buy it so that you can start playing it right now.

Jürgen Hubert said:

I think we are all getting sidetracked from the main point here.

The main point is, of course, that any of you who don't have WFRP 2E already should go and buy it so that you can start playing it right now.

Click to expand...

amen!

Spell said:

besides, following the RPG.net thread on the subject, one comes accross some peculiar views on the subject... like that on posts 121 (read the end of it) that would explain how the dimissions of Ryan from the GAMA board might have a lot to do with the reviews in question...
i think the link to that page is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=211410&page=13&pp=10

i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?

Click to expand...

Wow. That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net. The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.

This is the only review of WFRP2e I’ve read. I own 1e, though I haven’t played it in many a long year. The review confused me.

WFRP is/was a skill based system, with (IIRC) limited Hit Points (or whatever they were called), armour reduced damage, used a simple hit location system and was a percentage based.

DnD is a level based system with skills (or whatever they are called) added.

They don’t sound very similar to me, but the review implies that they are. I’ve read all of this thread so, before I rush out & buy the game (as requested) I’d be grateful if someone could answer the following questions regarding WFRP2e.

Have ‘Occupations,’ which could be changed been replaced by ‘Classes’ (which AFAIK can’t)?

Have ‘Character Levels’ been added?

Have ‘Hit Points’ been amended to such a point that one or two lucky (or unlucky) blows can kill someone?

BelenUmeria said:

Wow. That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net. The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.

Click to expand...

i'd say: "the man writes a review that doesn't really review the game, willingly or not manages to get a lot of people angered with his (at best) ill phrased compliments, and gets public flogging for it"
granted, some of the posts were rather extreme... but still, the post from grumpy, below, shows you just how bad and confusing his review was, positive votes or not!

and i still would like him to comment at those implications i was talking about in the post above...

BelenUmeria said:

Wow. That post is exactly why I refuse to visit RPG.net. The man writes a positive review and gets publically flogged for it.

Click to expand...

The point you seem to be missing is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a positive review.

Some people believe that it is a positive review.

Other people believe that it is using positive sounding language in order to convey a negative impression of the product. (i.e. they think that it is implying that WFRP is an inferior copy of D&D).

It is your opinion that it's a positive review. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but I don't think it's constructive to treat it as a fact, and then criticise peoples' behaviour on the basis of that assumed fact.

Jonny Nexus said:

The point you seem to be missing is that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not it is a positive review.

Some people believe that it is a positive review.

Other people believe that it is using positive sounding language in order to convey a negative impression of the product. (i.e. they think that it is implying that WFRP is an inferior copy of D&D).

It is your opinion that it's a positive review. That's a perfectly valid opinion to hold, but I don't think it's constructive to treat it as a fact, and then criticise peoples' behaviour on the basis of that assumed fact.

Click to expand...

I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.

If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it. A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label. By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.

Spell said:

i'd say: "the man writes a review that doesn't really review the game, willingly or not manages to get a lot of people angered with his (at best) ill phrased compliments, and gets public flogging for it"
granted, some of the posts were rather extreme... but still, the post from grumpy, below, shows you just how bad and confusing his review was, positive votes or not!

and i still would like him to comment at those implications i was talking about in the post above...

Click to expand...

Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for. Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet. It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames. You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.