Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Maggan]

Great!

This has nothing to do with Ryan Dancy - at least, not for me. It's just that if I notice a rather obvious error in a review, I will say precisely why I think that review was in mistake.

The last time that happened was when someone reviewed Blue Rose and got a number of things wrong about the setting. In response, I wrote my own review.

Great! But you have to admit that not everyone involved in this discussion has shown to be that level-headed.

Still I guess Dancey is doing what Dancey seems to do best; creating buzz about himself and d20.

Cheers!

M.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, starting WFRP characters are also all on equal ground - they are all a bunch of loosers..

The new edition fixed this to a limited extent but... a scholar, (I forget if it's wizard's apprentice or just scholar) is not anywhere in the same class as a bandit, shield brother, etc... etc... There are still big gaps in starting power level.

So at least for the more powerful WFRP characters, you have to write the adventure to fit to the stregths or weaknesses of the characters if you want to create a "balanced adventure". This can be a problem and requires some adjustment for some game masters. Still, it is not too much of a problem for WFRP, since the characters are never really intended to get really powerful in the way high-level D&D characters (or Exalted characters) are. So pretty much any encounter can be "challenging", whether the characters are experienced or not.

But yet, even the adventurers written by the professionals suffer from this problem. Some of them make assumptions that players will have skill X, even when they include pregenerated characters (who actually don't have the necessarily skills to make the tests), and include a ton of combat options. While a skilled GM can rig some of the combat so the initiate priest isn't getting hit the same as the giant slayer, it eventually does feel rigged.

 

[tarchon]

If Character A does something to Character B, and Character B rolls a die to see if that effect fizzles, that's a save. I don't think that can be any more clear.

So when you roll against opposed skill check in 3E, that's a saving throw? When you roll a check to dispel magic is that a saving throw too?

 

[RyanD]

Are you seriously trying to argue that the concept of a unified die rolling mechanic as a design objective for a game was first seen in D&D 3rd Ed?

Of course not. I was enumerating an open ended lists of changes made to WFRP that make it more similar to D&D 3e.

 

[Morrus]

OK, folks, I have to step in here.

Disagreeing with Ryan is fine, but there's a real undercurrent of hostility towards him running through this thread. That's not fine. Please treat other members of this board with courtesy, whether you agree with them or not.

Thanks, folks.

 

[Buttercup]

When I read the reviews, I felt that Ryan was using 3rd ed D&D in a way to give the casual reader a point of reference. Not as a means to bash/glorify one system or another. Most online gamers are familiar with D&D, so it is only logical that if you were trying to explain a system that wasn't d20 D&D, that you make comparisons against it to give readers an understanding of your point and a frame of reference.

Thanks, Steve. That's exactly how I understood the review. The other point I thought Ryan was trying to make was that philosophically, the mechanics of D20 and WHFRP were related. That's the kind of insight that I find fascinating, whether it's about roleplaying games or medicine or information technology architecture. I guess if one isn't used to engaging in those sorts of mental exercises, one might read things into Ryan's comments that I didn't, though.

 

[RyanD]

I love the way that Mr Dancey's complaints about WFRP 2.0 seem to boil down to "it's derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, all sorts of features that D&D 3.0 borrowed from WFRP 1.0!"

Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint. It's a high compliment.

I think people are confusing the use of the term "derivative" and "cheap low quality knockoff". A Cadillac Escalade is a "derivative" of a Jeep Wrangler. The Escalade is not diminished by that linkage. WFRPG(new) should not be considered diminished by my comments comparing it to D&D3e.

but his complaints about the Old World Bestiary seem to boil down to "it's not derivative of D&D 3.0 -- look, no treasure tables!"

No, my complaint is that 11% of the book is wasted space, and that more than half of the book may not be useful to many readers, and thus the price of the book is not comesurate with its value.

The book would be >more useful< with treasure tables, larger group tactics, etc. That isn't a comment in reference to any other RPG, it's just a comment with reference to its basic utility.

Fortunately, I don't feel the need to worry overmuch about the comments of someone whose 'critical faculties' are so finely tuned he can't even spell the name of the book he's reviewing.

Thank you for pointing that out. I'll have GR fix the typo immediately.

Ryan

 

[RyanD]

So when you roll against opposed skill check in 3E, that's a saving throw?

In the widest interpretation, I'd say "yes": You're rolling to "save" yourself from a negative outcome. I think the analogy is stretched too far at this point to be of much use however.

When you roll a check to dispel magic is that a saving throw too?

No, the target magical effect is already operative, you're attempting to alter a previously existing in-game condition. If you fail, the effect will still be operative.

RYan

 

[The Shaman]

Calling WFRP(new) a "clever derivative of D&D 3e" is not a complaint. It's a high compliment.

RyanD, would you feel equally "complimented" if someone said that d20 was a clever derivative of Alternity, or Boot Hill, or Top Secret?

 

[RyanD]

d20 was a clever derivative of Alternity, or Boot Hill, or Top Secret?

As all of those statements are true, I'll say "yes". Don't forget James Bond 007, and Ghostbusters too.

Standing on the shoulders of previous successes is a good thing, not something to be ashamed of or feel belittled about.

Ryan