Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[tarchon]

I've only got WFRP in it's original form, but isn't it derived almost entirely from WFB? The stat block is basically the same as the one in the wargame but with some values taken to 1-100 instead of 1-10. I never got the impression that WFRP was derived from AD&D in any real way other than it was a FRPG.

I think mechanically 1E does lean more on WFB than AD&D directly, but there are some clear D&D aspects, like the Human/Elf/Halfling/Dwarf race selection, the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system, and the rather useless umbrella class system (Ranger/Rogue/Warrior/Academic). Happily, both of those last ones got dumped in the 2nd edition. AFAIK, some of those could be from WFB too, but WFB obviously owes something to D&D. Ironically, in the allegedly derivative 2nd edition, it's become far more its own game than it was in the first, casting off a lot of the superfluous old Wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Ironically, in the allegedly derivative 2nd edition, it's become far more its own game than it was in the first, casting off a lot of the superfluous old Wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage.

I wonder if Chris Pramas could attest to how much the novels played a roll in casting off the old wargame and gotta-be-like-AD&D baggage. Because if there ever was a gamebook "feel" that really coincided with the game fiction for the setting it is WFRP(new) and the novels for the Warhammer line. No TSR novel I have ever read has aligned with the game material as well as or as consistently as Black Library's novel line does with Black Industry's new edition of WFRP.

Just something that came to mind... Of course, maybe it's been well coordinated all along, I'm a (relative) newbie to the WFRP setting and game but I now own more than a dozen of the Warhammer novels.

 

[The Shaman]

I think mechanically 1E does lean more on WFB than AD&D directly, but there are some clear D&D aspects, like the Human/Elf/Halfling/Dwarf race selection...

..which came from Tolkien and mythology...

...the Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic alignment system...

...which came from Moorcock...

...and the rather useless umbrella class system (Ranger/Rogue/Warrior/Academic).

...hmmm, you may be right on that one.

 

[tarchon]

..which came from Tolkien and mythology

I wasn't aware that Tolkien and mythology had a concept of allowable PC races. The use of the TSR's copyright-dodging circumlocution "halfling" is rather telling as well. Interestingly, WFRP did use just the Basic D&D races, rather than full palette of AD&D races, but I guess gnomes are a bit superfluous.

......which came from Moorcock

I wasn't aware that Moorcock had a concept of character "alignments." Actually, I misremembered the alignments anyway. Warhammer 1E had Good and Evil alignment as well, not that they were really used for much. It is undeniably D&D influence though, the only major difference being that Warhammer considered the 5 alignments to be mutally exclusive rather than two orthogonal axes. I do agree that D&D gets Law/Chaos from Moorcock, but WFRP's take on the idea is clearly derived from AD&D. I think it's unlikely that if someone had read Elric novels without seeing AD&D they would have come up with the idea that characters are defined by Good/Evil/Law/Chaos and that this property should be called "alignment."

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The best D&D (any incarnation) monster books I know where the monster books for the Planescape settings. They had lots of flavor text, too, which really gave me a good feeling how to present the monsters.

The WotC Monster Manuals, on the other hand, can at best be described as "functional". Sure, they do what they are supposed to do - give us lots of ready-to-use monster stats - but they don't really give me a feel how they behave and interact with their environment, beyond some basic combat tactics.

 

[Akrasia]

Ah, thanks. No Warhammer minis, good . The part with the different view angles seems good for knowledge checks. Does this make mechanical differences if the players get different answers, or is it only something for the DM to chuckle?

I guess it might make a 'mechanical difference' if the PCs think that the monster has x ability, and proceed on that assumption, but it turns out that the monster has y ability instead.

Beyond indirect mechanical consequences like that, though, I don't think there are any mechanical consequences. I'd have to look more closely to be sure.

 

[Turjan]

I guess it might make a 'mechanical difference' if the PCs think that the monster has x ability, and proceed on that assumption, but it turns out that the monster has y ability instead.

Beyond indirect mechanical consequences like that, though, I don't think there are any mechanical consequences. I'd have to look more closely to be sure.

That would be mechanical enough . My question aimed more at the point whether it's just a difference in background information, or whether it affects what the PCs do. The former just reads well, because the players probably won't dig into it any further and the GM is lthe only one who enjoys the information, whereas the latter gives an incentive for the players to get additional clues in some way, and in that case the information actually comes fully into play.