Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RyanD" data-source="post: 2494445" data-attributes="member: 3312">You might be right, but I was trying to focus on what was in WFRP, not write a lengthy dissertation on comparing D20 and WFRP.  I only devoted enough space in my review to explain the logic behind my conclusion of the close ties between WFRP and D20, and present a brief mechanical description of how easily material could be converted between the two systems.The point is that this smorgasboard of features was combined successfully in 3E on the basis of research and testing, not simply designer whimsy, and that research and testing was information that the author of the book was immersed in while it was being performed.3E may not be "innovative" in its sub-components, but it is "innovative" in the way those sub-components were selected for inclusion, integrated, and tested.WFRP gained the value of that innovation, and it gained it by mirroring those choices.  Let me give an example of what I mean by this statement.Breaking character features into skills & feats (Talents) using the same logical basis as D20, and then quantifying the skill component in the same way as was done in D20 allowed the designers to forego extensive playtesting for basic functionality - they already knew that such a system would work.  They could instead focus on platesting the actual instance of each skill to be included:  A much less time consuming process, and a process without risk of "system failure" - that is, there was zero chance that such a design approach would just fail (because it had already been successfully demonstrated).  Indeed, based on many variations of d20, several of which have originated at Green Ronin, that design team was particularly well suited to do this work, do it quickly, and do it with rigor.  They weren't doing it for the first time, they were doing it for the half-dozenth.  That's incredibly valuable.This was not an evolution of WFRP (old) to WFRP (new) based on trendlines within the game.  It was evolution of D20 (and by extension to the stew of predecessors filtered & modified for D20, certainly including WFRPG (old) as well) to WFRPG (new) with an eye towards maintaining brand compatibility with the property.I'll make the same argument for the restructuring of the combat system.  The WFRP (new) combat system could be lifted from the pages of virtually any D20 System RPG.  The parts that are different from "D20 Standard" (the critical hit system and the wound system) are smoothly integrated because the designers didn't have to worry about the rest of the system working.  They already knew the rest of the system would work, and they could focus their attention on the new stuff.  Look at the changes made from WFRP (old) to WFRP (new):  Cyclic initiative.  Round one surprise and flat-footedness.  Full/Half/Free Actions.  The actions themselves.  The careful division of armed & unarmed, touch and ranged touch attack types.  These are all D20 System staples, a "basket" of well tested, previously integrated systems.  Many games featured some of these concepts prior to 3E, but 3E is the place where this specific group of features was combined, integrated, tested, and popularized - and that work was done at least in part by the author of WFRP!If the WFRP (new) skill & "Talent" system replicates D20 (and it does), and the combat system replicates D20 (and it does), you've accounted for a material amount of all the rules used by players during the actual play of the game.  Not 100% obviously.  But a large enough percentage that it will be noticable to the players.And, as I said before, I intend that statement as a compliment, not an insult.</blockquote>

Verification