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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 9549685" data-attributes="member: 6796661">Yeah, but I think much of the problem is that the rules are all over the place. I think the core is solid, but it is hard to remember the exceptions and additions, even if you stick to the core rule book. Then when you bring in other books, they are not just additive, they often patch or replace entire sections of some of the core rules. Also, some of it is do to them (1) trying to put everything (player rules, DM rules, and bestiary) in one book while trying to keep the page count from getting out of hand and (2) rushing it out. There is a massive FAQ document maintained by the Ratcatcher's guild based on chats with Andy Law that just highlights how RAW don't always make RAI clear and that a lot of fixes and clarifications were overlooked. On the other hand, Andy Law loves his crunch and a lot of his ideas may have clarified things but also make them even more fiddly. Now that I've been running it for a year, I feel a lot more confident and deciding which rules to use and which to skip or gloss over.  But for new GMs, especially those not used to crunchier TTRPGs, I can understand how they may feel overwhelmed. The other potential issue for many is the reliance on tables. I would not have chosen to run a WFRP4e game if I had to run it in person, without the Foundry VTT game system for it.  Having to deal with so many tables was why I didn't run DCC Dying Earth. The DCC system for Foundry doesn't (or at least didn't) support the Dying Earth setting rules and I didn't want to deal with constantly look up tables. When the tables for a game are all coded into the VTT system, however, they add a lot and I enjoy them. Without the VTT automations, I prefer to stick to a much lighter rule set.</blockquote>

Verification