Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay
- Thread starter RyanD
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Wow, I too am surprised by the vitriol that has come out in this thread.
Personally, I found the review to be kind of a backhanded compliment- the impression I got was, "oh, WHFR 2e is cool because they derived a lot of it from 3e." I don't think that's accurate at all.
The game is great and is significantly different from dnd (any version) in both tone and mechanics. I think that calling it 'derivative' is loading the review in such a way that you know (or at least should know) that someone is going to be offended. I mean, how would you feel if you wrote a novel and a reviewer said, "Good book, but derivative of author X's book Y." I know that I would feel as though it was just short of an accusation of plagiarism.
Just a few thoughts as to why people are gettin' all worked up here. I love dnd and I love WHFR; they are distinctly different imho, as different as Ravenloft and VtM.
Personally, I found the review to be kind of a backhanded compliment- the impression I got was, "oh, WHFR 2e is cool because they derived a lot of it from 3e." I don't think that's accurate at all.
The game is great and is significantly different from dnd (any version) in both tone and mechanics. I think that calling it 'derivative' is loading the review in such a way that you know (or at least should know) that someone is going to be offended. I mean, how would you feel if you wrote a novel and a reviewer said, "Good book, but derivative of author X's book Y." I know that I would feel as though it was just short of an accusation of plagiarism.
Just a few thoughts as to why people are gettin' all worked up here. I love dnd and I love WHFR; they are distinctly different imho, as different as Ravenloft and VtM.
Templeton580
Explorer
*
Last edited:
The review is a time-honoured medium; unfortunately most online 'reviews' are nothing of the kind, these two among them.
Ryan's précis of the Old World tacitly attributes its own simplisticness to its subject and entirely fails to discuss the way in which the Warhammer world combines its inspirations, i.e. its actual implementation. He similarly doesn't comment on the introductory short story or the adventure. The second two-thirds which ostensibly evaluates the game's mechanics -- which indicates Ryan's biases in itself -- reads like a thought-experiment in tunnel vision. Yes, you can interpret everything in relation to d20, but so what, and why does that perspective belong in a review? The 'derivative of D&D' comment is demonstrably wrong ('clever' is a classic snide put-down, and may be here). There are too many factual mistakes, undeclared biases (though Ryan sees fit to go into Chris Pramas's background) passed off as facts, and non sequiturs ('it remains to be seen if that tone still resonates with today's gamers... the game is certain to generate a large and active player network') for a piece which adopts a tone of objectivity.
The first half of the Old World Bestiary 'review' is a reiteration of the book's contents (the current trend in RPG 'reviews'). The second half describes the main part of the book as 'average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction' -- a useless remark unless we're told how it is average or below-average -- gives a pointlessly brief evaluation of the Warhammer world, says 'The value for the price is just not justified' without saying why not, then lists things that Ryan would have liked to see in the book -- two of them fair requests, the others taking WFRP for D&D (a treasure-winning game with many magic items).
The Renaissance is so called because members of the urban elite classes adopted the conceit that their age was a revival of ancient Greek and Roman culture; almost no one now thinks it actually was.
Ryan's précis of the Old World tacitly attributes its own simplisticness to its subject and entirely fails to discuss the way in which the Warhammer world combines its inspirations, i.e. its actual implementation. He similarly doesn't comment on the introductory short story or the adventure. The second two-thirds which ostensibly evaluates the game's mechanics -- which indicates Ryan's biases in itself -- reads like a thought-experiment in tunnel vision. Yes, you can interpret everything in relation to d20, but so what, and why does that perspective belong in a review? The 'derivative of D&D' comment is demonstrably wrong ('clever' is a classic snide put-down, and may be here). There are too many factual mistakes, undeclared biases (though Ryan sees fit to go into Chris Pramas's background) passed off as facts, and non sequiturs ('it remains to be seen if that tone still resonates with today's gamers... the game is certain to generate a large and active player network') for a piece which adopts a tone of objectivity.
The first half of the Old World Bestiary 'review' is a reiteration of the book's contents (the current trend in RPG 'reviews'). The second half describes the main part of the book as 'average or below-average quality, stream of conscious, intentionally error-riddled fiction' -- a useless remark unless we're told how it is average or below-average -- gives a pointlessly brief evaluation of the Warhammer world, says 'The value for the price is just not justified' without saying why not, then lists things that Ryan would have liked to see in the book -- two of them fair requests, the others taking WFRP for D&D (a treasure-winning game with many magic items).
The Renaissance is so called because members of the urban elite classes adopted the conceit that their age was a revival of ancient Greek and Roman culture; almost no one now thinks it actually was.
Last edited:
Although I did not find his review of the main book to be negative hes "bias" towards the d20 system is rather obvious. To say that WHFRP2 is derivative of 3.x is not an accurate statement, rather they are products of parallel evolution. In the end what dice based RPG doesnt come down to rolling X dice to hit number Y?
I interpret his review as targeted to those who already use the d20 system, so it does make sense to compare the two systems.
as to the Bestiary review...
This I'll take issue with. Firstly I LOVE this book, and wish that more monster manuals followed its format (rather then having evil humanoid variant 2433-53.B to 2742-61.K). Having the first half of the book devoid of game mechanics was a wonderful idea. It also follows the layout of the GW army books, which is what most fans of the game would be familiar with.
The idea that All the background material in the book is open to all characters is simply not true. Page 3 has a sidebar calle "What PCs know" which gives general guidelines for what PCs know.
The idea that everything in WHFRP is there to be "Killed and Looted" then you should probably go back to Greyhawk/FR (no to disparage other systems). The first section gives an insight into how the different creatures are intergrated into the Warhammer world, and from an in-game point of view. I would like to know what errors were present in the fiction, because I didnt notice any (and I know a great deal about the game world, having read most of the fiction out there). I also found the writting to be very well done for an RPG book, (the comments from the skaven "expert" were wonderful, I'd buy that guy a beer if we ever met).
Intrestingly enough after your comments about the first part I found you statement about the second part being "dry and sparse" to be rather odd.
the comments about "classic" monsters being repetative is also odd... as they do need to have a rules description so that they can be used in the game, and also because there are some unique twists on the classics (the minotaur being the best example).
going down the list of "missing" things it would seem to me that most are not needed (or have no place in the system). Treasure tables are something I always ignore, and as such I didnt even notice that they were not there. The same thing goes for having a writeup for larger groups of monsters (is it realy so hard to have 5 orcs, one with slightly higher stats, to represent a patrol?). Looking through the ToC the only creatures missing are Lizardmen, and since the book focuses on the Old World that makes sense. I'm not sure what new creatures a GM would need to add that could not be done so by modifying an existing creature. He also points out the absence of magic items, which is (as has been stated many... Many times) is a function of the world not something that has been left out.
Looking through my Dark Elf army book I cannot see any items that would be hard to convert to the RPG.
I interpret his review as targeted to those who already use the d20 system, so it does make sense to compare the two systems.
as to the Bestiary review...
This I'll take issue with. Firstly I LOVE this book, and wish that more monster manuals followed its format (rather then having evil humanoid variant 2433-53.B to 2742-61.K). Having the first half of the book devoid of game mechanics was a wonderful idea. It also follows the layout of the GW army books, which is what most fans of the game would be familiar with.
The idea that All the background material in the book is open to all characters is simply not true. Page 3 has a sidebar calle "What PCs know" which gives general guidelines for what PCs know.
The idea that everything in WHFRP is there to be "Killed and Looted" then you should probably go back to Greyhawk/FR (no to disparage other systems). The first section gives an insight into how the different creatures are intergrated into the Warhammer world, and from an in-game point of view. I would like to know what errors were present in the fiction, because I didnt notice any (and I know a great deal about the game world, having read most of the fiction out there). I also found the writting to be very well done for an RPG book, (the comments from the skaven "expert" were wonderful, I'd buy that guy a beer if we ever met).
Intrestingly enough after your comments about the first part I found you statement about the second part being "dry and sparse" to be rather odd.
the comments about "classic" monsters being repetative is also odd... as they do need to have a rules description so that they can be used in the game, and also because there are some unique twists on the classics (the minotaur being the best example).
going down the list of "missing" things it would seem to me that most are not needed (or have no place in the system). Treasure tables are something I always ignore, and as such I didnt even notice that they were not there. The same thing goes for having a writeup for larger groups of monsters (is it realy so hard to have 5 orcs, one with slightly higher stats, to represent a patrol?). Looking through the ToC the only creatures missing are Lizardmen, and since the book focuses on the Old World that makes sense. I'm not sure what new creatures a GM would need to add that could not be done so by modifying an existing creature. He also points out the absence of magic items, which is (as has been stated many... Many times) is a function of the world not something that has been left out.
Looking through my Dark Elf army book I cannot see any items that would be hard to convert to the RPG.
John Q. Mayhem
Explorer
Ibram said:
That's kinda funny, being as WFRP is replete with "evil humanoid variant X."
Goblins, night goblins, orcs, black orcs, hobgoblins, chaos dwarves, Druchii, Skaven...
John Q. Mayhem said:
That's kinda funny, being as WFRP is replete with "evil humanoid variant X."
Goblins, night goblins, orcs, black orcs, hobgoblins, chaos dwarves, Druchii, Skaven...
True, but you will note that there are a large number of differences between those creatures... I was refering to the Goblin variant 1-15, Orc Variant 1-8 type of monsters.
RyanD
Adventurer
I think that the use of the term "derivative" in my original review has caused my meaning to become distorted. I've asked GamingReport to revise the review as follows, which I think better encapsulates my opinion:
Change:
"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system, "
to
"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game shares many similar design goals to D&D 3rd Edition, and uses a "basket" of mechanics and mechanical design choices that are clearly influenced by the design of D&D 3rd Edition.
This reviewer's opinion is that this represents a positive and successful attempt to marry a valuable and loved heritage with a state of the art design philosophy.
The game also features a number of other systems that are either unique to the WFRP game, or are borrowed from other successful RPGs. These include the innovative, incremental character advancement system, a brain-blasting insanity system, and a metagaming "hero point" system.
Integration between all these sub-systems is good, and the complete game works well as a cohesive whole.
The game is "
Change:
"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system, "
to
"The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game shares many similar design goals to D&D 3rd Edition, and uses a "basket" of mechanics and mechanical design choices that are clearly influenced by the design of D&D 3rd Edition.
This reviewer's opinion is that this represents a positive and successful attempt to marry a valuable and loved heritage with a state of the art design philosophy.
The game also features a number of other systems that are either unique to the WFRP game, or are borrowed from other successful RPGs. These include the innovative, incremental character advancement system, a brain-blasting insanity system, and a metagaming "hero point" system.
Integration between all these sub-systems is good, and the complete game works well as a cohesive whole.
The game is "
Similar Threads
