Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Henry]

Let's be done with insulting tenor, period, ladies and gentlemen.

I can see some similarities in Warhammer and 3E, having skimmed over it. But even I think that "derivative" is too strong a descriptor for the relationship the two games share. It's technically correct (in the "around 20 to 30% of the mechanics draw from concepts seen in d20" sense of the term). But when most people see "derivative", they think in the 60 to 70% vein of shared mechanics.

 

[S'mon]

Aesthete at Gencon UK 2003 Johnathan Tweet talked about this in an Ars Magica seminar, he made it clear that he did indeed base the 3e core mechanic on the one in Ars Magica.

 

[Belen]

I don't think any of those are "a derivative of" the preceding game, clever or not. Clearly there were some influences in each case, but I wouldn't say Star Wars was "a clever derivative" of Buck Rogers, say, and that's a much stronger case than D&D 3e => Warhammer 2e.

You can; however, say that Battlestar Galactica is a derivative of Star Wars.

There is not wrong with being derivative.

 

[Belen]

You said that the disagreement with the review is based on "elitist attitudes," and like the word "derivative," the connotations of elitism are usually negative.

Are we done with the semantic misdirection games now?

Actually, I said the people who feel the need to flame Mr. Dancey are elitist.

The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."

 

[Akrasia]

... I can see some similarities in Warhammer and 3E, having skimmed over it. But even I think that "derivative" is too strong a descriptor for the relationship the two games share. It's technically correct (in the "around 20 to 30% of the mechanics draw from concepts seen in d20" sense of the term). But when most people see "derivative", they think in the 60 to 70% vein of shared mechanics.

I don't think it is 'technically correct' -- at least not without qualification. Strictly speaking, the noun 'derivative' means 'something that is based on another source'. So, without qualification, the only thing that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of is WFRP 1e -- since that is obviously what WFRP 2e is based upon. Other games (including 3e) might have influenced some of the rules revisions in WFRP 2e, but as Chris Pramas makes extremely clear in his designer notes in the book, WFRP 2e is based fundamentally on WFRP 1e. Only the magic system is entirely new.

Dancey's claim would be fine if he had stated something like: "Some parts of WFRP 2e are derivatives of 3e". But without any qualification, the clear meaning of the sentence is that the primary basis of WFRP 2e is D&D 3e. And that's just false.

 

[The Shaman]

Actually, I said the people who feel the need to flame Mr. Dancey are elitist.

It doesn't make it any less insulting or unnecessary.

The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."

I didn't get that impression at all, personally - I think folks were legitimately interested in correcting some misapprehensions put forth in the review.

 

[S'mon]

The funny thing here is that "disagreement" has the effect, if not the intention, of telling D&D players "We don't serve your kind here."

As a D&D player I can honestly say I didn't feel that.
Although personally I thought 1e WFRP was too grim & gritty for my taste, 2e likely still is also. That it's not mechanically like 3e D&D doesn't bother me, though.

 

[IcyCool]

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

You and Ryan seem to have the same definition of "derives". "Influenced by" and "derives from" are distinctly different. It is entirely possible that both you and Mr. Dancy are intending "derives from" to mean "influenced by". That is the complaint. I have no value judgement on whether or not Ryan intended one to mean the other. The only thing I can say is that using "derives from" is incorrect.

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.

There have been (two? three?) posters who flamed Mr. Dancy, the majority of the posters here are trying to get him to understand where he is factually incorrect.

Why exactly are you flaming them? (And yes, saying something along the lines of "the people who are complaining about this are elitists" is a flame against those people.)

Edit - I see now that in post #97 you clarify that you are referring only to the few folks who actually flamed Ryan. I will point out that flaming someone is generally not a good idea, regardless of whether or not you think you are justified in doing it.

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

Ryan may have intended to say that "the game shares much in common with 3e". No one is disputing that. What is in dispute is Ryan's claim that WHFRPG 2 is a "derivative" of 3e. To use your diagram above, it would more accurately be displayed as:

AD&D --- Warhammer 1e 
   |               |
   |               |
   v               |
D&D 3e  <-----------
   |               |
   |               |
   |               v
   ------>  Warhammer 2e

With all of those arrows representing influences.

 

[S'mon]

I don't think it is 'technically correct' -- at least not without qualification. Strictly speaking, the noun 'derivative' means 'something that is based on another source'. So, without qualification, the only thing that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of is WFRP 1e -- since that is obviously what WFRP 2e is based upon. Other games (including 3e) might have influenced some of the rules revisions in WFRP 2e, but as Chris Pramas makes extremely clear in his designer notes in the book, WFRP 2e is based fundamentally on WFRP 1e. Only the magic system is entirely new.

Dancey's claim would be fine if he had stated something like: "Some parts of WFRP 2e are derivatives of 3e". But without any qualification, the clear meaning of the sentence is that the primary basis of WFRP 2e is D&D 3e. And that's just false.

I agree 100% with all the above, and very well put. I think it would be good if Ryan could take this onboard and withdraw this claim, change the wording to something that isn't clearly wrong.

 

[S'mon]

You can; however, say that Battlestar Galactica is a derivative of Star Wars.

There is not wrong with being derivative.

You could say "the starship sequences in Galactica are derivative of Star Wars" but no, Galactica is not "a derivative of" Star Wars, it clearly used a lot of other influences, most notably the Old Testament.