Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2501691" data-attributes="member: 23012">People objected to the review because: (a.) it claimed that WFRP 2e was a 'derivative' (i.e. based upon) D&D 3e, whereas it was in fact clearly based on WFRP 1e (3e may have influenced aspects of the revisions, but to assert that it was the basis for WFRP 2e was absurd); (b.) more generally, it claimed that particular rules and features of WFRP 2e were based on superficially similar ones in 3e D&D (e.g. the review claimed that the WFRP 2e skill system was based on 3e's, whereas it was clearly based on WFRP 1e);(c.) it failed to grasp some of the essential differences between WFRP and D&D by applying D&D notions to the WFRP game and setting (e.g. that it is about 'killing, looting, and powering-up', etc.);(d) and, overall, the tone of the review conveyed the impression that it was a 'backhanded compliment' to the work done by the author (e.g. 'a clever derivative...', etc.).Please note that none of these reasons have to do with 'anti-D&D elitism' or any such nonesense.  Rather, people disliked the review because it was inaccurate, and failed to do justice to WFRP's distinctive merits.</blockquote>