Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[RyanD]

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

You might be right, but I was trying to focus on what was in WFRP, not write a lengthy dissertation on comparing D20 and WFRP. I only devoted enough space in my review to explain the logic behind my conclusion of the close ties between WFRP and D20, and present a brief mechanical description of how easily material could be converted between the two systems.

That said......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.

The point is that this smorgasboard of features was combined successfully in 3E on the basis of research and testing, not simply designer whimsy, and that research and testing was information that the author of the book was immersed in while it was being performed.

3E may not be "innovative" in its sub-components, but it is "innovative" in the way those sub-components were selected for inclusion, integrated, and tested.

WFRP gained the value of that innovation, and it gained it by mirroring those choices. Let me give an example of what I mean by this statement.

Breaking character features into skills & feats (Talents) using the same logical basis as D20, and then quantifying the skill component in the same way as was done in D20 allowed the designers to forego extensive playtesting for basic functionality - they already knew that such a system would work. They could instead focus on platesting the actual instance of each skill to be included: A much less time consuming process, and a process without risk of "system failure" - that is, there was zero chance that such a design approach would just fail (because it had already been successfully demonstrated). Indeed, based on many variations of d20, several of which have originated at Green Ronin, that design team was particularly well suited to do this work, do it quickly, and do it with rigor. They weren't doing it for the first time, they were doing it for the half-dozenth. That's incredibly valuable.

This was not an evolution of WFRP (old) to WFRP (new) based on trendlines within the game. It was evolution of D20 (and by extension to the stew of predecessors filtered & modified for D20, certainly including WFRPG (old) as well) to WFRPG (new) with an eye towards maintaining brand compatibility with the property.

I'll make the same argument for the restructuring of the combat system. The WFRP (new) combat system could be lifted from the pages of virtually any D20 System RPG. The parts that are different from "D20 Standard" (the critical hit system and the wound system) are smoothly integrated because the designers didn't have to worry about the rest of the system working. They already knew the rest of the system would work, and they could focus their attention on the new stuff.

Look at the changes made from WFRP (old) to WFRP (new): Cyclic initiative. Round one surprise and flat-footedness. Full/Half/Free Actions. The actions themselves. The careful division of armed & unarmed, touch and ranged touch attack types. These are all D20 System staples, a "basket" of well tested, previously integrated systems. Many games featured some of these concepts prior to 3E, but 3E is the place where this specific group of features was combined, integrated, tested, and popularized - and that work was done at least in part by the author of WFRP!

If the WFRP (new) skill & "Talent" system replicates D20 (and it does), and the combat system replicates D20 (and it does), you've accounted for a material amount of all the rules used by players during the actual play of the game. Not 100% obviously. But a large enough percentage that it will be noticable to the players.

And, as I said before, I intend that statement as a compliment, not an insult.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Breaking character features into skills & feats (Talents) using the same logical basis as D20, and then quantifying the skill component in the same way as was done in D20 allowed the designers to forego extensive playtesting for basic functionality - they already knew that such a system would work. ...

I don't understand this. The skill system in 1e WFRP is very similar to the one in 2e. In 1e you had a range of different skills, most of which were based on the PC's attributes. I don't see how 2e's skill system "quantifies" skills in the same way as d20 -- it "quantifies" them in the same way as 1e did (though it slows progression down to 5 percent increments instead of 10 percent increments).

Moreover, the 'talents' were already 'skills' in 1e WFRP! Pramas just broke them away from the skills that were based on the PC's percentage-based attributes. This is hardly an innovation of 3e, but a distinction that predates it by many years.

More generally, while the 3e design process may have influenced Pramas' revisions to WFRP, the basis for WFRP 2e is clearly WFRP 1e, not 3e. Chris Pramas claims this quite explicitly in his designer notes in the book. As far as I can tell, I see no reason to dispute his claim.

 

[Akrasia]

... I'll make the same argument for the restructuring of the combat system. The WFRP (new) combat system could be lifted from the pages of virtually any D20 System RPG. The parts that are different from "D20 Standard" (the critical hit system and the wound system) are smoothly integrated because the designers didn't have to worry about the rest of the system working. They already knew the rest of the system would work, and they could focus their attention on the new stuff. ...

For the record, this claim is also bogus. While there are clear d20 influences on the 2e combat system (full actions and half-actions being the clearest), the basis for it is clearly 1e WFRP.

I'm not trying to be rude here, but since it is so obvious that most of the core features of WFRP 2e are based on 1e, I have to wonder whether you've actually looked at or played WFPR 1e.
:\

 

[The Shaman]

You might be right, but I was trying to focus on what was in WFRP, not write a lengthy dissertation on comparing D20 and WFRP. I only devoted enough space in my review to explain the logic behind my conclusion of the close ties between WFRP and D20, and present a brief mechanical description of how easily material could be converted between the two systems.

If you say so, but reading it I felt more like it was a conversion treatise than a review.

Look at the changes made from WFRP (old) to WFRP (new): Cyclic initiative. Round one surprise and flat-footedness. Full/Half/Free Actions. The actions themselves. The careful division of armed & unarmed, touch and ranged touch attack types. These are all D20 System staples, a "basket" of well tested, previously integrated systems.

If this had been in the review initially, it would have cleared up a lot of questions for me.

Many games featured some of these concepts prior to 3E, but 3E is the place where this specific group of features was combined, integrated, tested, and popularized - and that work was done at least in part by the author of WFRP!

Again, if you say so. As I mentioned earlier, one of my first impressions on picking up 3.0 D&D in the store was, "Gee, this looks a lot like Warhammer Roleplay."

Of course, I'm just an ordinary gamer, so what do I know?

If the WFRP (new) skill & "Talent" system replicates D20 (and it does), and the combat system replicates D20 (and it does), you've accounted for a material amount of all the rules used by players during the actual play of the game.

It's been many years since I've looked at 1e WHFRP, but I don't recall major differences in the basics of combat resolution or skills between the edition I knew and the new edition as you describe it - however, I will have to leave it to others more familiar with both systems to evalute the veracity of these statements.

 

[eyebeams]

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.

Sure. The purpose of the review was to insult the design process used Pramas/Green Ronin by arguing that is virtually bereft of original craft on the part of the writer.

The review is actually about that. The only way to keep the discussion from discussing this salient and central fact of the review would be to close the thread, which I heartily encourage you to do. Its link was not posted here for any constructive reason whatsoever.

 

[SteveC]

It's been many years since I've looked at 1e WHFRP, but I don't recall major differences in the basics of combat resolution or skills between the edition I knew and the new edition as you describe it - however, I will have to leave it to others more familiar with both systems to evalute the veracity of these statements.

There are quite a few changes, actually. First edition skills were little rules systems all to themselves, while second edition has a unified system where each skill has an associated attribute, and checks are made using a unified mechanic.

As far as combat goes, you have free, half and full actions, a surprise round, roll once, cyclical initiative, a full action called charge that lets you move twice your base movement and then make an attack, a full round action calles swift attack that is required if you want to make multiple attacks, a disengage option that voids the free attack you receive from moving away from a target when you're engaged, and a delay action that costs a half action but allows you to take another half action later on in the round.

The rules for WFRP v2 borrowed heavily from D20, but they also borrowed from other sources as well and also have innovative qualities to them. I think Chris Pramas looked at the original edition, decided on the things that were important to the game (its core if you will) and then decided to use a common-sense, don't reinvent the wheel approach for the rest of it. I'm glad that's what he did, since it makes playing WFRP easier for me, and also makes it an easier sell to my fellow gamers. That's the approach Chris talks about in his excellent designer's notes, and I think it's at the heart of what Ryan is talking about too.

For me, what makes Warhammer special is the career system and the damage/critical hit rules. Both of those rules made it in relatively unchanged. The things that were changed were largely some of the wonky rules that may have made sense back at the time, but really don't make for a fluid game anymore.

To make those changes, Chris went with what has been tested and successful in the last few years, and also was smart enough to go with what the audience he was looking for would actually want to see. Much of the time that makes WFRP derivative of D20, but those certainly aren't it's only influences. And that makes sense. What do I mean? Having played some of the Dying Earth roleplaying game, I think it uses excellent design and has very elegant rules. These rules would have been awful to borrow from for WFRP!

So did Chris Pramas make a derivative game entirely from D&D? Of course not! He made a game using the best mechanics he had available to him to simulate a rules-medium, slightly gritty fantasy game. He took from his source, and them came up with some innovative rules, and also took from the existing world of games. That's something that every game designer does, at least every good one! Much of the time the best mechanics came from WFRP first edition, but sometimes they came from systems with similar target audiences, which includes D&D.

Was that such a hard thing?

--Steve

 

[Spell]

"The Warhammer World is a rich one, a place of chaos and war, of intrique and politics, or desperation and heroism, of gods and daemons." -- WFRP, page 9

yeah, that's the new GW vision of the world... which most of the old time fans (i.e. everybody who hasn't started to play with the new edition of the game... i suspect is the bigger part of the market) don't like at all. what they did to the emperor or to bretonnia was cause of much aggro. also, i have seen a number of people adopting the new rules with the old flavour text and adventures.

 

[tetsujin28]

The amount of backpedaling in this thread is fascinating.

 

[Spell]

Why do you say that? The Renaissance represented a period of liberalizing beliefs, expanded acceptance of science vs. superstition, the growth of a middle class, a flourishing of humanist art & culture, and the restructuring of medevial fuedal governmental systems towards broader-based democratic principles.

What part of the Warhammer World does that reflect?

(Gunpowder and firearms do not make a setting "Renaissance", in my opinion.)

Ryan

i'd say early baroque, which is even further down the history line.
quest forforbidden knowledge that can damn the world AND your own soul? baroque (exploring the forbidden world of science sure wasn't as bad as messing with chaos, but is you had to face the inquisition, you wouldn't had been much happier)
witch lynching? baroque (check salem or cromwell's england)
a fair amount of technology in its early stage? baroque
national states that have not yet concluded the construction of their overstructures? baroque again.

 

[Spell]

I have not seen much discussion at all.

ehm... look again?