Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Akrasia]

Obviously I can't back it up with hard numbers.

I will say that most of the die hard WFR players I know -used- to play.

I used to play back in HS but there is only so much you can do with a game system that has a small number of products (mostly out of print) and isn't being developed.
....

Um, you're aware that there's a new edition out, right? One that has been selling extremely well since it was released earlier this year (behind only 3e and WoD)? One that is attracting new players? And that Dancey's review was of this new edition, and not the out-of-print one?

In other words, your claim that the system 'isn't being developed' is, ummm, flat wrong!

Indeed, since the new core book was published, there have been at least five 'support products' released... and more are coming for the rest of the year.

In short, the 'facts' differ from your personal experience.

(I do agree with you about Critical Miss, though.)

 

[JoeGKushner]

That article has been widely mocked for having no relation to the real world.

But yet, it was printed in the official Games Workshop magazine so I imagine that someone in the company must've read it and gave it the thumbs up. Just because GW is big doesn't mean that they're not stupid.

 

[Akrasia]

But yet, it was printed in the official Games Workshop magazine so I imagine that someone in the company must've read it and gave it the thumbs up. Just because GW is big doesn't mean that they're not stupid.

Sure -- it was given 'thumbs up' by someone who doesn't know squat about RPGs, by a company that for years has had a very anti-RPG mentality (and, to some extent, still does have, outside of Black Industries).

More generally, I'm not sure what your point is. That article is laughably inaccurate in many of its claims (5000 RPG players worldwide -- including D&D?!). A bad article was published in WD -- big deal.

The fact of WFRP's past and current success is not affected by it.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Nice to see you being condescending.

Apologies if I'm being unfair here, but you only seem to reply to people who are slamming D&D. Where someone, like myself if I can be so bold, makes a reasoned point against the review, you seem to totally ignore them.

So far, I've made five replies to posts of yours, attempting to explain where I (and others who didn't like the review) are coming from, and you've only replied once - and even there your post appeared to make absolutely no reference to anything I'd said in my post.

You also haven't replied to my post of yesterday in which I attempted to directly answer a question you'd asked (by quoting from previous posts where I had already provided the answer).

I genuinely like debating with people over issues such as these, and feel that such debate is the best way to resolve differences. But debating has to be a two-way street, and if someone is asking questions, but appears to have no interest in reading the answers... well I begin to think that perhaps there's no point continuing.

 

[Barak]

Indeed Mr Nexus, I do read your other works.. But CM was special. And without access to advice from the advice column, my life took a definite turn for the worse.

Anyway. It is true, I believe, that WFRP biggest selling point, and it's biggest difference from D&D worlds is the atmosphere. The rule system is different, yes, but in the end matter little, other than to keep the characters at relatively lower power longer, allowing that very atmosphere to remain longer.

Talking atmosphere, of course, requires talking about "average" campaigns. It is possible to run WFRP in a D&D fashion, and to run a D&D campaign in a WFRP fashion. Not overly recommended, as the system in both cases -support- the atmosphere better than it's "opposite". Which, I believe, is why so many people familiar with WFRP -campaigns- (and not just rules) took a dim view of the review. If someone totally unfamiliar with WFRP was to read the review, and buy the book based on that, chances are the -atmosphere- would end up being closer to D&D than is good for the system. After all, the rules are "similar". But if done that way, there's not only no point in playing WFRP, it's even -better- to play D&D, since the system is better-suited for that atmosphere.

 

[orangefruitbat]

So was "Power Behind the Throne" - which is generally considered one of the finest WFRP adventures out there, and is almost complete RP.

The "Doomstones" campaign. And as far as I know, they were originally indended as D&D adventures, and rewritten for WFRP...

 

[Belen]

Apologies if I'm being unfair here, but you only seem to reply to people who are slamming D&D. Where someone, like myself if I can be so bold, makes a reasoned point against the review, you seem to totally ignore them.

So far, I've made five replies to posts of yours, attempting to explain where I (and others who didn't like the review) are coming from, and you've only replied once - and even there your post appeared to make absolutely no reference to anything I'd said in my post.

You also haven't replied to my post of yesterday in which I attempted to directly answer a question you'd asked (by quoting from previous posts where I had already provided the answer).

I genuinely like debating with people over issues such as these, and feel that such debate is the best way to resolve differences. But debating has to be a two-way street, and if someone is asking questions, but appears to have no interest in reading the answers... well I begin to think that perhaps there's no point continuing.

Jonny: I do not dispute your right to dislike the review and anything I have wrote has not touched on your points because I do not disagree with them. I like the review because it gives me a reference point to understand Warhammer. Without the review, I would have ignored Warhammer because I hate to learn new systems. By showing how similiar things between the two systems are, the review made Warhammer palatable and significantly increased my likelihood to buy it.

The people are disagree with are the people who obviously do not like D&D/d20, hate that the review compared the two systems, and are mad that any comparison can be made.

I agree that Dancey could have chosen a better style and format for his review and certainly could have chosen his words better, but the review does not signal that the sky is falling and I think it will have a positive effect on people who know nothing about Warhammer, even if the Warhammer fans want to draw and quarter Dancey because he dared sully the name of Warhammer with D&D.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Indeed Mr Nexus, I do read your other works.. But CM was special. And without access to advice from the advice column, my life took a definite turn for the worse.

You were taking advice from the advice column!

Anyway. It is true, I believe, that WFRP biggest selling point, and it's biggest difference from D&D worlds is the atmosphere. The rule system is different, yes, but in the end matter little, other than to keep the characters at relatively lower power longer, allowing that very atmosphere to remain longer.

Talking atmosphere, of course, requires talking about "average" campaigns. It is possible to run WFRP in a D&D fashion, and to run a D&D campaign in a WFRP fashion. Not overly recommended, as the system in both cases -support- the atmosphere better than it's "opposite". Which, I believe, is why so many people familiar with WFRP -campaigns- (and not just rules) took a dim view of the review. If someone totally unfamiliar with WFRP was to read the review, and buy the book based on that, chances are the -atmosphere- would end up being closer to D&D than is good for the system. After all, the rules are "similar". But if done that way, there's not only no point in playing WFRP, it's even -better- to play D&D, since the system is better-suited for that atmosphere.

Yeah, my feeling is that if I was playing a WFRP campaign I'd want to use the WFRP system because:

a) It is specially written to support the style of the setting;

b) I find having a different system makes the game feel different and helps get me in the different mindset.

In one of our D&D campaigns, we did actually play a WFRP scenario, but it felt very much like D&D. I think this was partly that the D&D rules support a different (not worse, just different - and I for one like variety so I play both games) style of play, partly that we were playing D&D characters so they carried on in the same way, and partly just that without a different rules system things don't feel different. Of course, you could argue that since this scenario was being dropped into an existing D&D campaign, we didn't want it to feel different.

Interestingly enough, we're shortly going to test what impact the rules have on the perception of the setting because when our current BRP CoC campaign (GMed by John) finishes, we're going to start a new D20 CoC campaign (GMed by General Tangent). I'm interested to see whether that will feel like D20 or CoC (to my not particularly flexible brain).

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

So was "Power Behind the Throne" - which is generally considered one of the finest WFRP adventures out there, and is almost complete RP.

Huh? I thought the "Empire Within" campaign was written exclusively for WFRP...

 

[JoeGKushner]

Anyone who thinks that Warhammer isn't high fantasy really needs to sit down with the various Slayer books (Skaven, Troll, Vampire, etc...) It's like a Monster Manual or whose whose of monsters in the Warhammer world and it's main character runs around with a rune axe and his hencman with a dragon bane sword!

Much like D&D, Atmosphere is up to the GM and players and is portrayed widely different in the source material. Heck, look at Valten. He's got the whole farm boy saves the world thing going on.