Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I note that Ryan has edited the review.

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

Your tinfoil hat is slipping a bit - you might want to readjust.

 

[Akrasia]

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.
...

I agree that the review of the core book is better after the revision. I still think that the review of the OWB is pretty bad -- it essentially misses the whole point of the Warhammer setting. For example, to complain that there are no 'treasure tables' demonstrates a failure to grasp that WFRP is not about 'killing and looting'. WFRP is about trying to stay alive, and keeping your sanity, in a fundamentally hostile world -- one where wealth is measured in brass pennies, and the only magical items are legendary.

 

[the Jester]

I agree that the review of the core book is better after the revision. I still think that the review of the OWB is pretty bad -- it essentially misses the whole point of the Warhammer setting.

Well, I have neither read that review nor looked at the OWB, so I can't speak to that.

 

[Spell]

Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for. Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet. It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames. You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.

well, since i'm not active of their boards, and i only lurk there form time to time, i can't really debate on your "anti-20 boards" label.
from my experience, though, it seems that there are d20 haters, gurps haters, wod haters, new wod haters...

your idea of comparing a doughnut to d20 doesn't really hold water in this regard. MOST comparisons i have seen, in almost any board (even on these ones) do tend to become flame wars in the (really-not-so) long run, UNLESS a very specific point is made: "the spell system in runequest is very similar to that in call of cthulhu" or what has you.

finally, one thought: if you have problems with people attacking other people, you should turn the tones down. it seems to me that most of your posts on these boards (not rpg.net) have the kind of tone that says: "say all you want, but Ryan rocks". maybe he does, but if all you have to say is complaining about people "attacking him" (even when they are making legitimate point in a civil, albeit somewhat heated discussion), you are not doing much to prevent said discussion from turning into a war...

 

[Henry]

Actually, a lot of the 'facts' are not accurate (he gets some of the features of the WFRP rules wrong)...

Just curious, but which features? I have been reading back through the thread and can't find anyone mention specifics on what you refer to. (Could be the eyesight -- they say it's first to go. )

 

[Spell]

By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.

this is your opinion, and you are very well entitled to it. i, for one, would never buy a book that is "derivative" form another.
so, we can do two things: we could argue until the end of times about whose opinion matters most, or we can discuss the merit of the review and its phrasing, and seeing that it's really effective as a review, or as a compliment.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For example, to complain that there are no 'treasure tables' demonstrates a failure to grasp that WFRP is not about 'killing and looting'.

I disagree.

What's a "Treasure Table?"

It's a way to randomly generate a given creature's belongings - whether they were purchased, stolen, traded for, etc.

The presence of a treasure table does not mean that a monster exists to be killed and have its stuff taken. It's there so that the DM can answer, on the fly, "What stuff does X have?," given it's relative power and proclivities (favors weapons and armor over gems, prefers coins, etc.).

So, if there's no treasure table, the answer to that question is, "Whatever I decide to give it, absent any particular guidance on what might be appropriate."

The ability to kill something and take its stuff is independent of how the stuff got there in the first place.

And, hell, there's no reason that the treasure table couldn't look like:

Percent ............................................. Treasure

01-90............................. Weapons / Armor as mentioned in description
91-95 ............................ As above, +1d4 brass pennies
96-97 ............................ As above, +1d4 brass pennies, +1d4 silver dollars
98-99 ............................ As above, +1d2 gold ducats
100 ............................... As above, +1 interesting item

 

[Spell]

Also, I found that thread on Dancey's review over at RPG.net most entertaining.

yeah, some stuff was hilarious! i would have laughed if they were talking about ME!!!

 

[Spell]

But equally, there are plenty of people on ENWorld who upon hearing that a game is non-D20 will loudly declare how stupid a move that is and insist that they will never buy it for that reason alone.

amen... whe i was using another alias, i dared to suggest to a guy that was a bit unhappy with the d20 system to go and try GURPS... some people (who clearly had never played GURPS, or whose style was not catered by that system) went out of their way to smash the game down, as if it was the worst woe on earth since the black death...

 

[Rasyr]

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.

I have no idea of their first instance, but I do remember that MY first experience with half actions, full actions, and such came with the first time I ever played Champions. It has Half Phase actions, Full Phase Actions, and even Zero Phase (i.e. free) actions.