Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Jonny Nexus]

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.

Exactly. Many of these things (such as the unified dice roll) are very much a parallel evolution that practically all games systems have or are going through.

Saying that WFRP 2nd Edition has copied "D&D's" concept of having a unified dice roll is like saying that bats evolved from birds on account of them both having wings.

 

[wedgeski]

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.

This strikes me as simply untrue. A 'good' review is one that helps the reader to make a judgement about the product in question without having seen or read it themselves. And like I have said before, all reviews are merely opinions. TBH RD's review was tons more useful than 95% of all RPG reviews I have read here or elsewhere.

 

[Henry]

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.

I'll offer another point of view on this: This review does exactly what it was written to do -- it gave the author's opinion of the product and was detailed in those opinions. Often, more than one kind of review is needed, not just the same objective fact-finding that occurs in some reviews I've seen before. This review is indeed written from the perspective of the fan of d20, someone who wants to assure other fans of d20 that this product is not so far off that they would have a hard time learning it, or worried if it has inconsistent or problematic rules. If someone wants the perspective of a reviewer who is a fan of Warhammer and approaches it that way, then there are other reviews that do this. Even a review of someone who hated previous editions of Warhammer would be welcome to me, because sometimes THOSE reviews see something the others have glossed over with rose-colored lenses. If I want a review that deconstructs EVERY SINGLE mechanical component that is incorrect in a product, I'll go to John Cooper, who is a master of collecting that kind of info.

The only way a review is useless if it simply says, "Product X is Dog Poo", and then either states nothing or states totally incorrect info. Ryan's review, where facts were used, were accurate in order to support his opinion, e.g. ACs, actions, initiatives, success chances, etc. His conclusions wrong or right, I have no clue, because only Chris Pramas can definitively provide an answer. But he did use specifics, and offer an opinion, and even, according to this thread, draw some people to check out WFRP who wouldn't have before.

 

[eyebeams]

I note that Ryan has edited the review.

Of course, it has already served its purpose . . . .

 

[Melkor]

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

[sarcasm] That's as good as scientific evidence. [/sarcasm]

 

[RyanD]

So he should just expect to have a flock of readers who are reading his stuff waiting to take something in the negative way, almost trying as hard as possibly can be done to read something negative in what he writes?

Oh, I fully expect that. I actually thought I'd be flamed for the review for comparing it to Middle-Earth. I expected to get hammered by the JRRT crowd, then whipcracked by the WF people who are Old World partisans.

I didn't expect to get slammed for what I perceived as a complimentary comment. So I changed the comment to make sure people got the fact that I thought it was a compliment. No harm done.

Ryan

 

[Piratecat]

I note that Ryan has edited the review.

Of course, it has already served its purpose . . . .

If that purpose results in more people buying Warhammer, I have a little trouble complaining - it sure seems to have drawn peoples' attention to an excellent game, whether or not you agreed with the review.

 

[Akrasia]

... Ryan's review, where facts were used, were accurate in order to support his opinion ...

Actually, a lot of the 'facts' are not accurate (he gets some of the features of the WFRP rules wrong), and even from those facts that he does get more or less right, he draws unsupportable conclusions from them (viz. that WFRP 2e is a 'derivative' of 3e).

 

[RyanD]

i wonder if Ryan can comment on these claims?

Sure. While pursuing the objective of protecting what I consider a valuable (maybe irreplacable) resource, I made a bad decision. I took responsibility for that poor choice, and suffered the consequences of my actions - loss of an elected position, public defamation, and a lot of personal anquish. That's my cross to bear, and I don't let it affect my strategic analysis of the gaming industry or my punditry.

I do not have any animosity towards Green Ronin or any of its owners or employees. I did not write the review to damn with faint praise. My objective was simple: I wrote a review of a product I liked, and I hope other people will buy and play it as a result.

 

[the Jester]

Hmmm...

You know, although I found Ryan's review to be somewhat deprecating at first, after he's edited and clarified a little I find it much better.

Honestly, I think one thing is getting lost in the noise here- it's a positive review. Maybe it wasn't put as well as it could have been (and maybe Ryan should be more careful with how he phrases things like this, in order to avoid future furor), but he gave it four stars.

Hey Ryan, I want to thank you for taking the time to follow this thread and post here. Your efforts to clarify your position are appreciated (at least by me). Don't let the barking and yelling get you down! Thank you for sticking with the discussion when, frankly, it might be easier to let everyone else just fight among themselves over what you meant. I'm glad you're making the effort to state what you meant.