Warhammer fantasy roleplay disaster, what happened

[Relique du Madde]

I too find the ranger's character to be poorly played from what is presented here. But I want to know where the insanity came from. Can someone explain that?

How do seers work? Did he have visions of this as being you were robbing a grave, or were you robbing a hidden treasure? What exactly is so bad about grave robbing in the setting anyway, if all you're going for is the loot, and putting the remains back safe and sound?

Warhammer uses sanity checks (the system/setting is heavily inspired by the Cthulhu mythos and influenced Ravenloft). Using "chaos" or "evil" based spells and rituals cause it. Witnessing said rituals causes it. Seeing chaos creatures cause it. Being a seer and messing around with animal entrails while trying to get visions of the future. Having a vision can cause it. Grave robbing causes it. Desecration causes it. Acting in the favor of the chaos gods can cause it.

Why? Insanity is the chief way the chaos gods (and mythos inspired dark gods) can grab a hold of person's mind and soul. It allows them an avenue that leads towards the bodily corruption of the individual (and their eventual transformation into a chaos entity).

 

[Dice4Hire]

Somehow I gather CN is not a good PC alignment in this setting.

 

[Rel]

Just curious: Was this the new WFRP3e or one of the previous editions?

 

[pemerton]

The others had the attitude that somehow they won and beat us because they wouldn't have to start all over again and they got all the exp.

I felt like the GM was unfair. The seer character and I thought we did roleplay well but maybe I have it totally wrong

<snip>

Was the GM really bad? I thought that like the others we would be allowed to rp our characters in our own way

To me, this is the sort of story that explains why fantasy RPGing remains such a minority hobby - because bad GMs enforce bad experiences on new (or returning) players.

There are a lot of different ways that the game you describe could have gone better. The main suggestion that I would make is that trying to handle every aspect of play as a roleplaying issue - Am I playing my PC right? - is a recipe for disaster. You, as players, need to talk about expectations, among one another and to the GM.

For example, what is the point of having a seer PC in the game if the GM and a favoured player are going to conspire to make it impossible for the player of the seer to actually play that character?

And as for the player of the ranger, instead of relating to you solely ingame, that player should be talking to you about what he wants from the game, and what you want, so that some sort of accommodation can be reached.

I personally would have no interest in participating in the sort of experience - it can hardly be called a game - that you have described. Surely a better group can be found somehow!

 

[Relique du Madde]

Somehow I gather CN is not a good PC alignment in this setting.

Especially if you are playing the "insane" CN and plan on getting exposed to chaos energy/magic... cause then you might find yourself growing an appendage in an akward place.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

As mentioned, there should have been some talking about why the group was together, some time before play began. (That sentence looked very odd without any 'N's, I had to beat the key into submission.)

One of the downsides of random careers, sometimes they just don't gel. On the flip side, some of the WHFRP 2e starting careers give a very good idea as to why the PC is adventuring, I mean, given Skaven, would you want to be a rat catcher?

The Auld Grump

 

[Holy Bovine]

Somehow I gather CN is not a good PC alignment in this setting.

Actually I would say that the ranger player was actually playing against the norm for Warhammer. The world is not so black and white as your typical D&D game but the GM and ranger player both are treating it as such. The most common alignment in Warhammer is neutral which is often described as a person doing what they can to survive and prosper. If you have to step on a few toes to do so so be it(within in reason - most people aren't going to kill just for material gain). I would have thought the thief's idea of grave robbing to actually be somewhat in line for the setting - assuming they were as desperate for coin as indicated. Going out into the woods and fighting slavering packs of wolves is crazy - combat in Warhammer is brutally tough and any PC going this route risks permanent injury and a very violent, messy death. Also there are the chaos mutants.

 

[Grave]

Actually I would say that the ranger player was actually playing against the norm for Warhammer. The world is not so black and white as your typical D&D game but the GM and ranger player both are treating it as such. The most common alignment in Warhammer is neutral which is often described as a person doing what they can to survive and prosper. If you have to step on a few toes to do so so be it(within in reason - most people aren't going to kill just for material gain). I would have thought the thief's idea of grave robbing to actually be somewhat in line for the setting - assuming they were as desperate for coin as indicated. Going out into the woods and fighting slavering packs of wolves is crazy - combat in Warhammer is brutally tough and any PC going this route risks permanent injury and a very violent, messy death. Also there are the chaos mutants.

Thats how I remembered it and I felt like the luck I was having with dice vs wolves is going to run out. One of the guys even said wow those dice are lucky for you. I have my jaw broken and lose a tooth and the next day Im out slaying wolves in rags with something like a pocket knife and somehow digging up a grave is unrealistic for a petty shoplifter. Its only in this thread that I have a clue why robbing a grave is even dangerous. These guys seemed like they would go up to a knight and say hail fair knight. From what I remember a knight would say something like "what do you want, do you have any gold, give it to me or die"

 

[Grave]

Just curious: Was this the new WFRP3e or one of the previous editions?

The manual was 2e, Im not sure why some players had starting career as ranger, academic and labourer, do you know if that exists in any edition? Im starting to think the guy playing the ranger said he wanted to play a ranger and then decided having a gun is so cool and he chose coachman as starting career but somehow was still a ranger which I think is also a little strange when you look at the starting careers and think which one of these is like a ranger.

 

[arscott]

One really cool innovation in WFRP 3e is that the party itself has a "class" of sorts: So you might all be a "gang of rogues", a "diplomatic entourage", or "oathsworn". My party, for example, are all "brash young fools". It helps define why the party is adventuring together, and gives them a level of interconnectedness beyond "you're all friends with eachother".

On top of that, it gives them special abilites (brash young fools gain fortune points faster than normal), the ability to share certian character abilities with eachother, and most importantly, special rules for what happens when the party doesn't get along that inflict consequences without everybody needing to stab eachother to death. (when brash young fools argue, it's physically and mentally tiring)