Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Spell]

That it's from Ryan Dancey seems to lend it a perception that it's the d20 establishment saying those things, when it's not.

i agree completely. that why he could have done much worse than taking that in account and paying more attention to the way he was making his point...

At the end of the day, I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.

the funny thing is that i feel the same up to a point. after all, if the head of one of the leading d20 publishing houses writes a revision of a system, some of the fixes are going to come from the d20 system, rather than, say, the storytelling one.
but, the new version is still very much tied to the old warhammer.
AND i had the feeling that the 3rd edition of D&D also incorporated a number of ideas from warhammer first edition, among other sources.

now, if i'm writing a review and i casually mention this, and maybe spend a paragraph or two about what's similar, i'm doing alright. if i base my whole review on this matter, ignoring some interesting ideas of the system just to prove my point i am not.
for one, i am not writing a good review. then, i'm not really writing a review, but i'm trying to state a point. he could have written an article, if he was so compelled to share his vision.

 

[Henry]

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.

You'd never buy AD&D? 3E? Warhammer? Mutants and Masterminds? Star Wars? All of them are derivative of previous works, some more so than others. Or do you mean you'd never buy a game that miscredited the sources it obviously came from? I honestly don't understand your meaning in this statement.

I'll agree that arguing about the meaning of derivative is pointless, though, because the review's been edited now to make the point clearer.

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...

I've seen that here, for sure, but then I've seen it on every forum from here, to Kenzer, to RPGnet, to Dragonsfoot; everybody's got a "slam" contingent, and in some cases I've seen it's the same people on every forum, just changing the game they're defending.

 

[Spell]

sorry, nonsense cut away... :=)

 

[Spell]

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.

thanks for clarifying that.
having said that, no offence, but you should really pay more attention to your phrasing. that alone will eliminate many many flaming attempts.
(and, besides, i still think the bestiaryrocks, but that's my opinion, of course... )

 

[Spell]

You'd never buy AD&D?

yes, because i could use the new settings.

3E?

not anymore, because i don't really like the system that much, and it requires some serious conversion to make it work with older matherial (in this regard, i wish it was much more derivative...)

Warhammer?

yes, because the new system was derivative from the old one, i could use the old books i had without much conversion (i checked the reviews looking for that, specifically).

Mutants and Masterminds? Star Wars?

no, and no.

All of them are derivative of previous works, some more so than others.

and what's the problem? some of them were supposed to be derivative. some of them offer much more in terms of flavour and setting to be very very enjoyable despite being essentially the same game system with a new dress.

I honestly don't understand your meaning in this statement.

i mean that i'm not buying a game that has:
1. a vanilla flavoured medieval europe setting with a little addition of a chaos and demonic theme
2. a game system that is obviuosly derivative from another, which comes accorss from being a lot more flexible
3. a game system whose bestiary is obviously overpriced when compared with the market standard.

that was my idea of warhammer 2nd edition after reading the reviews.
fortunately, i do have the books, i can tell you that:
1. the setting is anything but medieval or reinassance europe + a demon or two.
2. if warhammer 2nd edition is derivative from a source, that would be its 1st edition (which is a good thing, because the first edition is out of print, and because the old gamers that got the old book can still make some good use out of them
3. the bestiary is pricey (like 99% of RPG books out there... i don't care if they spend a lot in production... as long as i'm concerned, they could give me a cheap pdf file with no flashy fonts and no art, if the price would drop A LOT!), BUT it's also great to give the GM and the players more idea of how the setting actually is, AND it really rocks as a bestiary in its own regard.

maybe i should've made my point clearer?

I've seen that here, for sure, but then I've seen it on every forum from here, to Kenzer, to RPGnet, to Dragonsfoot; everybody's got a "slam" contingent, and in some cases I've seen it's the same people on every forum, just changing the game they're defending.

which, in a way, it's fair... well, ok, it's not, but it's understandable.
having said that, you can't really blame other people to have that attitude when some people here don't act differently. i wonder if there would have been such an outcry, in these boards, if somebody was attacking, say, sandy petersen...
i very much doubt so!

 

[Akrasia]

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. )

Well the fact that all of the main rules in 2e WFRP are based upon the main rules in 1e WFRP (except for the magic system) is very clear. It is clear to anyone passingly familiar with 1e, and is mentioned by Chris Pramas himself in his designer notes. For some reason though, the review claims that many core elements of 2e WFRP are based on 3e D&D. One example, which I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, is the WFRP system of skills and talents. Dancey claims that this system is based on 3e, whereas in reality most of the skills and talents in 2e were (in a slightly different form) already present in 1e. The main difference is that in 1e they were all just lumped together as 'skills'. I suppose that the 2e distinction between 'skills' (scalable) and 'talents' (nonscalable) resembles the distinction between skills and feats in 3e -- but this distinction between these two different kinds of PC abilities predates 3e by decades (e.g. see GURPS).

Some more picky points from the review:

“This is further facilitated by the fact that most percentile values in the game are evenly divisible by 5, and external effects are presented in increments evenly divided by 5 as well, allowing fast, on-the-fly conversions without a lot of prep work.”

A minor point, but strictly speaking, this isn’t true. The core ability scores of characters are determined by rolling 2d10 (+ some base, depending on race), and all skills are based on those ability scores. So in fact only a few of a characters’ skills and abilities (1 in 5) will be divisible by 5.

“The downside to this system is that presenting it to the reader is very complex, and tracking all changes to a character over time requires diligent and careful paperwork. A GM cannot quickly glance at a character sheet and determine if all the math has been done to spec - the whole sheet would need to be reverse-engineered to check all decision points.”

Actually, keeping track of characters over time is pretty darn simple, as each new career lists the maximum level that a character can have in any particular ability, etc. (i.e. career bonuses are not ‘cumulative’), and a character must achieve all the ‘advances’ in a particular career before advancing to the next one. It is pretty easy to check – especially since a character’s ‘original abilities’ are also listed on the character sheet (along with his/her previous careers, etc.).

“…Characters are humans, elves, dwarfs (sic), and halflings who become more powerful over time as they kill monsters, take their stuff, and power up….”

Actually, WFRP adventures are quite different from D&D adventures. WFRP is not about 'killing monsters, taking their stuff, and powering up'. To interpret the game in this way is to miss the whole point -- and conveys an incorrect picture of the game to potential players.

More precisely, combat is much more rare –- and generally considered something to be avoided –- in WFRP games, as it is more dangerous than in D&D, and healing is slower and more difficult. There is also far less emphasis on ‘loot’ in WFRP – adventurers are more likely to be fighting for their lives (and sanity) than more thousands of gold pieces and magic items. Magic items are very rare, and magic is unpredictable and feared.

“A system for creating magic items, and more magic items (there are only 2 magic items presented in the core book, and neither of them are very interesting mechanically)”

Well, this kinda misses one of the main points of the Warhammer setting, namely, that magic items are extremely rare. It is plain different from D&D in this respect.

Particular quibbles aside, the overall problem with the review is that it tries to fit the square WFRP 2e peg into a round D&D 3e hole. As a consequence, the review is misleading.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Quote for trufery.

 

[tarchon]

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. )

The most glaring thing is what everybody pointed out and what he corrected, which was the idea that all of WFRP 2's d20-like features are from d20, when almost all were really brought over from WFRP 1.

The characterization of skills as going of the raw stat value:

A WFRP character who wanted to try and hear a noise would roll 2d10, and try to roll under their relevant stat percentile value. A D20 character who wanted to attempt this task would roll 1d20 and add a bonus vs. a DC of 20.

In fact, they do use bonuses from Skills, somewhat like d20, though the the increments are different and the advancement methods are very different. If you have a Skill, you get a +10% for the check, and you can take a skill up to three times, if you can buy it in separate careers each time. Talents also frequently modify skill tests.

Plus, there's the analysis that Warhammer's percentile resolution is "in most cases" mechanically identical to d20, which it very clearly is not. He picked a special case when they are and used that as evidence for a general conclusion (i.e., if a stat is evenly divisible by 5 like 35, then you can do it with a d20 - but 20% of the time is not "most of the time" - what if it's 36, 37, 38, or 39?). It was a bit like saying that d20 resolution is "most of the time" just like flipping a coin because a +0 attack bonus against a 11 AC has a 50% chance of succeeding. Factually wrong.

Then there are the peculiar geography statements, like comparing Bretonnia to "Norman France." I assume he meant Normandy, or at least the Norman duchy, which is/was just north of Brittany, where the Bretons live. In WFRP 2, Bretonnia is quasi-Arthurian, and real-world Britanny is the setting of much of the earlier Arthurian legends. You don't have to be Dr. History to see what "Bretonnia" is supposed to be. In general, the WFRP setting has a large "alternate history" component - what if the Bretons ruled France? Someone who really had a keen eye for geography would also realize that WFRP Europe is essentially Europe with the sea level raised by about 2 melted icecaps (note the absence of Denmark), but that's definitely in the extra credit realm.

"Proper nouns are anglicized local language derivatives ("Altdorf", "Sigmar", etc.)." "Altdorf" and "Sigmar" aren't even slightly anglicized. I understand roughly what he's getting at, but the way he said it is wrong, and he picked some pretty bad examples, since those are both straight German. Basically, most place names are versions of real place names, often warped at bit (e.g. Bretonnia=Brittany, Norsca=the more elevated parts of Scandinavia, Kislev=Kiev, Albion=Britain), but there isn't a general pattern of anglicization.

OK, maybe nitpicking there, but there's just a very general pattern of not being very familiar with the setting (plus errors of real-life fact) and seeing everything through d20-colored glasses. That's why I think it's not a very good review. The amendments improved it a lot, but it's still not very good at capturing the real differences between WFRP and d20 because it's so bent on proving the similarities.

 

[eyebeams]

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.

I find your sincerity and honesty as compelling as ever.

 

[Steve Conan Trustrum]

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.

And if the review requires the person to first have experience with another product in order for the reader to make that judgement because just about every point the reviewer makes is tied to something else ... ?