Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2405862" data-attributes="member: 23012">Thanks for all the interesting information in your post, RyanD.  It was very enlightening.I certainly agree that the production values of the 3e-era books has improved the quality of RPGs overall.  Regarding your comment on WFRP:I am only a fan of WFRP, so I do not know Chris Pramas' reasons for not using d20 for the second edition.  (I will mention that I think he did a really excellent job with the 2e WFRP book, and that I am glad that it has the mechanics that it does.)However, I *do* think that mechanics affect game play.  Simply tweaking 3e into a WFRP form would have failed miserably -- and I know that you would not have recommended that.  Revising d20 *enough* to accurately capture the feel of the WFRP game and setting would have resulted in a game that differed *significantly* from 3e (and the standard 'd20' system).  At that point, the question becomes: "why radically modify the d20 system into a form suitable for Warhammer, when we could instead simply revise and update the 1e version?"  I know how I would answer that question.But who cares about people outside the forest?  I am sure that to people who do not play wargames they ‘all look the same’; that to people who do not read fantasy novels, ‘the plots all look the same’; etc.But the rules of a game *do* have an impact on how the game plays and feels.  These differences might seem trivial to people who do not play these games – but to people who *do*, the differences are important.Moreover, there is a segment of the market that appears to enjoy trying out new mechanics.  For them, testing out new mechanics is part of he appeal of RPGs.  Granted, this is probably a very small segment of the market (despite the impression that one might get over at RPG.net), but it is there.</blockquote>

Verification