FFG's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Obryn]

While I'm very happy with WFRP2, and will certainly go back to it one day, WFRP3 looked pretty interesting, too, and by and large received rave reviews up-front. Also, I confess - I love fiddly bits. It's good to see one that probably comes from a similar perspective as I'd have.

I, personally, resisted buying it because I have a table with myself + 6-8 players. I'm not going to tell half of them to stay home for the night because we're playing WFRP.

-O

 

[wayne62682]

Very nice review. I've played this, and I don't care for it one bit. The system is an alright attempt at being something different, but I don't care for the "board game" feel and the heavy focus on storytelling and "party narrative". Combats are way too drawn out, without very many fun or interesting things to do (you basically get the option of attacking or defending, but you can't do both), and are way too brutal and grind-y.

 

[MortonStromgal]

I like the system but I feel the books are horrible because they are not written with complete examples and expect you to have knowledge of the previous chapters. They also either put the information in a chart or the text not both and sometimes reference cards without putting the information on those cards in the text. They could easily have lost the "board game feel" by having the special abilities (heck even the basic melee attack) printed in the book. There is no reason the power cards or the special dice could not have had a table in the book so you could choose not to use them. The cards and dice should make things quicker not be forced at the table.

I think after you get over the "How the F does this work" its a pretty solid game and an improvement over 2e.

 

[SteveC]

I picked it up when it first came out, and have been playing in a campaign for several months now.

I absolutely love the mechanics but am more neutral about the bits.

There's no reason you need to use cards to focus all of the actions and resources, but I will say that with the recharge mechanic built into the game it does make them mighty useful.

The thing I like most about the system comes from the fact that we have an extremely descriptive and off-the-cuff GM. When you make a check (which he has been doing with full "let it ride" type mechanics) you have a story as to how and why you succeeded or failed at the check. As a result, we do fewer die rolls but they matter more.

As far as combat goes, it is tactical based on resources you have at your disposal. You can dodge or parry an attack, but doing so has a recharge mechanism (which the cards make lightning fast to resolve) so you have to decide when to use them. You also have powers (in sort of the 4E sense) but they are both combat and non-combat in nature.

I think the system runs very well, but then I can see it is definitely not something that a rules lawyer player should be let loose on. There is a fair bit of GM discretion as to how some of the powers are applied, and that is not necessarily a good thing for all groups.

For a session log (complete with pictures) take a look here.

 

[SteveC]

I thought I would follow-up and note that my GM for the game has done another session log, which you can find here. It gives a little insight into the mechanics of the game, and how much fun it can be to roll a chaos star!

--Steve

 

[mattcolville]

That's cool, thanks for linking it.

 

[Gort]

That's cool, thanks for linking it.

By the way, the "warfare in D&D" link in your sig was very interesting, and I will be trying it out in my game. Thanks!

 

[mattcolville]

By the way, the "warfare in D&D" link in your sig was very interesting, and I will be trying it out in my game. Thanks!

There's another thread about it around here somewhere. And a longer thread on RPGnet, which you can probably find via Goog.

People respond positively to the Mustering phase because its innovative and fun and there's very little mechanics involve.

The Battle phase has been less popular, but that's because that's where all the mechanics are. But it worked in play, it worked well, and it obeyed all the Axioms presented in beginning.

However, they're not really rules. They're more like a framework over which more rules are needed. But I'm not sure anyone's actually used it. No surprise, I think the style of play the rules emulate are now much less popular than they were 30 years ago.

 

[Gort]

I just really like the idea of laying out some objectives for my party - makes the battle into "what will happen if we fail?" rather than simply, "will we live or die?"

 

[arscott]

Well feck. The combat was already long enough with everyone hitting every round and doing damage every round. Adding 4 to all the monsters' soak isn't going to make anyone happy. Is it possible that it's *already* added in for Monsters?

Don't forget that the inverse is true, and Strength and Agility are added to weapon damage for melee and ranged attacks, respectively.

Excepting big bads with super soak, monsters can usually take one hit per skull or so.