Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

I guess Tim's (Rasyr) statement was considered a personal attack ?!?!?!?!

Hmmmm....

Well, it was slightly harsh, but still criticism of reviewing style.

 

[Piratecat]

Please quit discussing the argument, and get back to discussing Warhammer and/or the review of it. If you want to discuss moderation, you're more than welcome to do so in the Meta Forum.

Many thanks.

 

[Shining Dragon]

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.

Then I wish he told us that he's comparing the two systems to show that to move from D20 to WFRP isn't difficult due to the hidden similarities of the system instead of outright claiming that WFRP is a derivative of DND 3E - its like he totally ignored the original edition of WFRP and how much of the system was derived from that.

as to the Bestiary review...

With the comments about "Treasure tables and guidelines for determining what can be looted from the bodies and lairs of the monsters" being missing, Ryan seems to think that WFRP is all about killing and looting and levelling up.

Although pleasure is gained from seeing your character advance, I don't think thats what WFRP is about and including such information would convey the wrong message. Characters in WFRP, for the most part, should not be rolling in cash after slaying a few monsters. Perhaps it would have been a waste of space to have beside each creature entry "Treasure: none", "Treasure: you wish" or "Treasure: only in your mind (gain d10 insanity points)"?

 

[tarchon]

Yes, because 3e is the devil!

Actually, I like 3E quite a bit - I thought it was almost brilliant in the way it adapted all the great new developments in RPGs since 2E while maintaining the flavor of D&D. All kudos to Ryan for his part that - seriously, it was a great job.

It just factuallly and demonstrably wasn't the inspiration for WFRP1 or WFRP 2. That's all. Why does that bother you so much?

 

[The Shaman]

A partial summary of my opinion on this matter is the first portion of message #16.

Thanks, I missed that on my scroll-through.

It might strengthen your review to mention these (and the others), rather than just making a declarative statement without offering examples.

That said...

...non-cyclic combat initiative system, the combat action system, the division of character abilities into skills & feats (talents), the use of a unified die rolling mechanic, the effort to make a unified target number convention (in this case, lower is almost always better), the increment to all system values in 5% degrees, and so on, right?

...collectively don't seem to have appeared fully-formed from 3e D&D - as noted throughout the thread, some (most?) of these originated before 3e D&D, sometimes by many years, and to suggest otherwise is perhaps a bit disingenuous.

RyanD, I've read the review a couple of times now, and the impression that I come away with is that it doesn't give a fair evaluation of 2e WHFRP. While I think your intent may have been to make the review more accessible to d20 gamers by purposes of comparison, some of the comparisons are needlessly unflattering.

For example, the comment regarding the lack of plane-traveling, &c magic suggests, intentionally or otherwise, that the game offers "less" than D&D, rather than noting that this is a function of the way the game-world is structured - "there is no Great Wheel in Warhammer, rather there is the Warp, and these are the effects is has on the game..." would still capture the difference while actually offering a review of the game, instead of a recitation of what D&D has and WHFRP does not.

Since there seems to be an undercurrent in all the threads that I've seen discussing this review of "WH Fanboys v. d20 Tools," let me just say that I've played 3e D&D but don't any longer, and I owned the first WHFRP book years ago but don't plan on buying the new one. I have no stake in supporting one game-system over another. I take issue with the review as described herein on its own merits.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

There are several errors in the review - for example, I don't believe that the Magic book has yet been published for the 2E of WFRP, yet the review implies that it's available - there's also several comments like:

I have read and played various prior versions of WFRP. What I remember clearly from those experiences was that the prior games were very chaotic - many different systems, little consistency, several places where mechanics overlapped, or contradicted themselves, or were supposed to be delivered in future products that never got released.

The current edition of WFRP is the 2nd edition. There are arguably only two prior versions of WFRP - the 1st printing by Games Workshop, and the reprints by Games Workshop or Hogshead that incorporated the errata.

If we're to include other games published by Games Workshop as "prior versions of WFRP" it would seem a little strange - discussions of prior versions of D&D normally don't include Top Secret, Boot Hill, Gamma World, etc...

Ryan, can you clarify what you mean and what 'prior versions' you have played?

 

[Rasyr]

Please quit discussing the argument, and get back to discussing Warhammer and/or the review of it. If you want to discuss moderation, you're more than welcome to do so in the Meta Forum.

Many thanks.

Umm.. the post of mine that you deleted WAS discussing the review. Not sure if I should try to say in what regard, or make ANY more comments on this thread at all considering that Henry is apparently threatening a banning.

And yes, I have posted a question about this post deletion over in the Meta forum.

 

[WSmith]

This review is unbelieveable.

Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing is one of the best RPGs ever created, both version 1 and 2. It predates 3rd edition by more than a decade. To say that it is a derivative of 3rd edition is pretty arrogant, IMO.

To honor P'Cat's request here is some relavant WH info:

The V2 magic is amazing. Nothing like the standard Vancian magic used in every incarnation of D&D from 1974 on. There was no mention of that in the review.

 

[WSmith]

Sorry, I must have glossed over this:

The magic system of WFRP is similar to the system in Call of Cthuhlu. Characters cast arcane spells they have acquired via the advancement system, and risk catastrophic negative effects each time they use magic. Some of these effects are sufficient to render a character essentially unplayable. Thus, spellcasting members of the party are both an asset, and a liability, and magic will often be an option of last resort. Divine spells are slightly less dangerous, and slightly less powerful. Magic in general in WFRP is less powerful than that in D&D. Spellcasters can help in combat, but they likely cannot win it outright. They can buff the party, but the buffs will not feel "required". And the range of magical effects is mostly limited to things that can happen on the battlefield - no plane-walking, ethereal travel, animal awakening, etc. for WFRP.

There is a magic supplement available, and it is reasonable to surmise that the supplement expands the range and nature of the spells available to spellcasters, so this limitation may be addressed with an additional purchase. The spells provided in the core book are a reasonable basis for running the game.

Not 100% accurate, but oh well.

 

[Rasyr]

nevermind....