Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Belen]

I guess we didn't read the same review. I can tell you that before I read it, I had not even considered buying the book, but now I intend to give it a close look, and may even pick it up.

All of the criticism of the review has left me perplexed. From where I'm sitting it looks like a bunch of people have teh hat for Ryan Dancy and have decided that anything he says about their fave game must be bad because he was the one saying it. :shrug:

They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e. Warhammer is too pure a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.

It is a very elitist attitude and akin to this one guy I know who refuses to switch to 3e from 2e because the easier mechanics of 3e allow "less intelligent" people to play.

 

[Belen]

As all of those statements are true, I'll say "yes". Don't forget James Bond 007, and Ghostbusters too.

Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.

Ryan

I liked the review. It made me far more likely to pick up Warhammer and thought it was an excellent way to describe the games within terms that I already understand. Thanks!

 

[The Shaman]

Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.

I agree - however, the word "derivative" carries an emotional charge for some people signifying shoddy or second-rate, which would explain some of the reaction to the review.

(That, and failing to note that 3e D&D is derivative of 1e WHFRP... )

And BelenUmeria, please watch where you swing the "elitist" stick - most of the discussion so far has nothing to do with whether or not one system is "better" than another, but rather better understanding of the relationship of the two systems. Throwing bombs in what so far has been a mostly useful discussion is irresponsible.

 

[Akrasia]

Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint. It's a high compliment.
...

Irrespective of whether you think this claim is a 'complaint' or a 'high compliment', it is a plainly false statement.

To say that x is a 'derivative' of y is to say that x is based upon y.

To say that WFRP 2e is 'based upon' 3e is laughable. It is based on WFRP 1e. While it has 3e 'influences', it is not 'derived' from 3e.

In short, this central claim of your review is bogus.

 

[tarchon]

They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e. Warhammer is too pure a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.

I'm not mad - the review is just factually incorrect in many respects and the arguments used to support it are mostly highly mistaken. If somebody'd written a review of AD&D and based it on how heavily it derived from Warhammer, I'd have given it the same treatment if it had come my attention, because that would have been just as wrong and misleading.
Ryan knew exactly what he was stirring up when he started a whole thread to pimp this review - he's not stupid. I think it should be obvious to everyone who's spent any time on gaming boards that the style of review he wrote ["here's how this gaming system is derivative of my favorite gaming system (that I just happened to help develop)"] and the way he advertised it was inevitably going to draw attention. I mean, let's not blame the bulls because they come snorting at the guy who's jumping around in the pasture with a red flag yelling "look at me!".

 

[Akrasia]

They're all mad because it was compared to D%D 3e. Warhammer is too pure a game to be sullied with the name of D&D.

It is a very elitist attitude and akin to this one guy I know who refuses to switch to 3e from 2e because the easier mechanics of 3e allow "less intelligent" people to play.

Rubbish. It has nothing to do with 'purity' or 'elitism'.

It has to do with the fact that the review makes a number of plainly false claims.

 

[Belen]

And BelenUmeria, please watch where you swing the "elitist" stick - most of the discussion so far has nothing to do with whether or not one system is "better" than another, but rather better understanding of the relationship of the two systems. Throwing bombs in what so far has been a mostly useful discussion is irresponsible.

I have not seen much discussion at all. Instead, I have seen a lot of venom torwards Mr. Dancey about a positive review of the product. The review (correctly) speaks to people who actively play D&D and presents the book in a way for them to understand it. Heck, I would think that review is going to sell a lot of copies of the book that would not otherwise have been purchased.

So, a lot of people (who already seem to own the book, publically castigate the reviewer for daring to imply that it shares underlying concepts with D&D 3e. In fact, the comments on the review sites are enough to undo Mr. Dancey's review and turn people away from the product because they violently disagree with the D&D 3e "stigma."

To me, this is a very elitist attitude. I see no other reason for the viscious comments directed against Mr. Dancey other than this type of attitude.

 

[Belen]

Rubbish. It has nothing to do with 'purity' or 'elitism'.

It has to do with the fact that the review makes a number of plainly false claims.

Reader 1: "Hey, someone wrote a positive review of Warhammer Fantasy RPG. It said that we should go out and buy the book and would even make a good setting for the legions who play D&D/d20."

Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!? Get my pitchfork and torch."

 

[Akrasia]

Reader 1: "Hey, someone wrote a positive review of Warhammer Fantasy RPG. It said that we should go out and buy the book and would even make a good setting for the legions who play D&D/d20."

Fan: "It says the game is like D&D!? Get my pitchfork and torch."

If the review made comparisons between WFRP and D&D to help explain the system (and its strengths and weaknesses) that would be fine. But that is not what the review does. The review claims that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of 3e.

That's just plain false. Comprendez-vous?

 

[Belen]

I'm not mad - the review is just factually incorrect in many respects and the arguments used to support it are mostly highly mistaken. If somebody'd written a review of AD&D and based it on how heavily it derived from Warhammer, I'd have given it the same treatment if it had come my attention, because that would have been just as wrong and misleading.

You could have fooled me. I do not see how the review is factually incorrect. Warhammer 1e derives from AD&D. Thus, we have

AD&D => Warhammer 1e => D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e

Why anyone feels the need to flame someone for a positive review is beyond me. The review has the potential to add to the existing fanbase of Warhammer, thus making it easier to find players, increase profits for Green Ronin, and keep the game in print.

Yet, the review is "factually incorrect." Basically, Ryan says "the game shares much in common with 3e." Everyone else says "Nah uh! "