Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Rasyr]

funny, i'm not...
it seems to me that Ryan, not being a random fanboy, should weight his words much better. it's not the first time that i see a flame war starting because he was "misunderstood" or because he wasn't too clear...
maybe he should pay more attention not to be misunderstood?

This was kinda the point that I had been trying to get across in the post of mine that had been deleted. I was apparently too brusque, and it had been seen a higly inflamatory statement. So, I will try again, but in a more polite manner this time.

Ryan has a history of using non-standard definitions for words. These definitions tend to have no real connection with standard dictionary definitions. This trend can be seen in both this thread with his unique definition of the word "derivative", and over in the rules-lite thread with other terms. I am sure I could find more instances, but at the moment, I do not have the time to go search.

Ryan also tends to act bewildered or surprised when folks misunderstand what he is trying to say. Using the proper definitions for words would alleviate this issue.

If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it. A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label. By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.

I am sorry, but upon reading that review the first thing that flashed into my mind was all the times that I have seen other games talk about themselves and comparing themselves to D&D and how they are so much better. This review seemed to take the same tactic, only it compared WHFRP to D&D and tried to show that WHFRP was based on (i.e. derivative) D&D and how D&D was better.

While the review itself gave 4 stars, all that would do would be to ensure that others read it. The actual content of the review missed a number of points about the system, did no comparing to the previous edition, and actually spent a not inconsiderable amount of space talking about WotC and D&D.

However, RD's approach to this whole thing (posting such a thing on RPGnet of all places, then posting a new thread here to draw attention to it) has not helped matters.

The review was actually posted on Gaming Report, where Ryan has business links, not RPG.net. The rpg.net thread was a spontaneous reply to his review.

Only one more thing to add: I bought WFRP v2 without having played or read v1. While reading it, I was struck several times by the similarities to D&D, especially in the realm of combat. I knew that the author of v2 was a big d20 writer, and I assumed that these things had been influenced by D&D.

Or perhaps these things influenced D&D in the first place? That is something that should also be considered....

 

[wedgeski]

The review was actually posted on Gaming Report, where Ryan has business links, not RPG.net. The rpg.net thread was a spontaneous reply to his review.

And I've finally hit my stupid point quota for this month! Thanks for the correction.

 

[Morte]

Incidentally, two articles that will help understand the general feel of the Warhammer World immensely are the (in)famous:

"How James Wallis Ruined My Character's Life" and "Yes I Sank Your Barge"

Thank you, Jürgen, it's far too long since I read those.

 

[Akrasia]

...
In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.

Exactly. The fact that this is so painfully obvious to anyone with minimal knowledge of WFRP is what makes the review's initial claim so outrageous.

And, as I've already pointed out in this thread, the author of WFRP 2e, Chris Pramas, states quite explicitly that, with the exception of the magic system, all of the core rules of 2e are based on the rules of 1e (revised, streamlined, and so forth -- but clearly based on things in the earlier edition).

I have yet to see any reason to doubt Pramas' own account of his development process. :\

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Thank you, Jürgen, it's far too long since I read those.

Slightly off topic, but thank you both of them for liking them.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

I think my major concern with the review is its accessibility. A proper review is intended to talk about the product, not draw a comparison to another product line in the same market. If a review does so, it is of absolutely no value to someone who either doesn't like d20 or doesn't play it. It has no value to someone who wants to play WHFRPG and isn't looking for a setting to convert to d20.

A good review should exist entirely within the capsule of the product it is reviewing without going to external resources beyond the related product line. Sure, it's fine to have a brief blurb like "a big step up from AUTHOR X's last offering, A Slab of Poo and Bob, Too' ", but much more beyond that creates a comparitive analysis and not a product review. Even comparing too much to WHFRPG 1e would be beyond a good review's purpose because, again, it's comparing the product rather than saying what the product is and why that is a good or bad thing in and of itself.

A review is there to discuss the merits of the product, not to illustrate relationships to other game systems, be those relationships real or imagined.

 

[glass]

Have ‘Occupations,’ which could be changed been replaced by ‘Classes’ (which AFAIK can’t)?

Careers work pretty much the same way they always did. The only real change is that you always have to complete a career to move on to one of it's exits. In 1e that was only the case with magic careers.

Have ‘Character Levels’ been added?

No.

Have ‘Hit Points’ been amended to such a point that one or two lucky (or unlucky) blows can kill someone?

One or two (un)lucky blows could always kill someone. The increased damage dice have made the dame slightly more deadly, but increases in armour value mean this really only affects unarmoured characters. BTW, in WFRP, they're called 'wounds'.


glass.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Or perhaps these things influenced D&D in the first place? That is something that should also be considered....

I won't go into detail, but the things that first struck me have since been confirmed to be influenced by D&D. Later in my post, I referred to Mr. Dancey possibly assuming that, since some things were from D&D, other things that merely looked like it (but were in fact from v1) were also from D&D.

 

[Numion]

There was a good point made on gaminreport comments: if the review got RPG.NET so riled up, it has[/] to be somewhat true

 

[Turjan]

Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:

- some of which were newly created;

- some of which were concepts which - since the writing of 1ed - have become regarded as a universal game concept (such as a universal die roll); and

- some of which are concepts found in D&D 3ed (such as full, half and free actions - although other people have claimed that these are in fact universal concepts also).

We should not forget that the rational design process that went into D&D 3E implied lifting many proven concepts from other games. AD&D 2E was a relatively old-fashioned design compared to many of its competitors, and the 3E designers managed to bring the game up to date. I think they did a good job with that. But now claiming that the concept of half actions, full actions and swift actions is something coming from D&D 3E just distorts reality. That has been common in popular RPGs since 1981.

It's things like this that trigger the reaction this review gets.