NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8460938" data-attributes="member: 27996">Switching to TN 100 roll-high would make some stuff more straightforward. A move to a roll high mechanic would smooth out some of the issues roll under d100 systems do have.Instead of making WFRP the not-BRP game, it would be the not-RoleMaster game.And at least we'd still be using standard dice unlike 3e...It was serviceable - it made some design decisions I didn't agree with  like making magic work differently from the core % mechanic - which 4e rightly corrected, but then did more stuff.2e WFRP had issues, but what it needed was a "2e WFRP 2nd edition" that fixed those issues. Not a complete scrapping and clean sheet redesign.Twice...That seems to be the rub for me and others.There is some useful stuff that could be ported to 2e. But all the additional complication 4e brings to the table (Literally) is not needed for them.And it's not like it's critics haven't played the game and given it a fair shake.2e was serviceable. In a world where the IP holder didn't jump hands every edition it would have been properly revised, and with a halfway decent playtest could have been a very good game.I think the bias amongst 4e's detractors is obvious.4e is overcomplicated for what it does, with no discernable reason for it at the table.How does having 4 different meta currencies in WFRP add to the flavor of adventuring in the old world?And the list goes on - I do not need to re-type the excellent posts from other posters here.I just think that it is a shame that the C7 design team chose to go the way they did with 4e WFRP. For the same time and effort they could have made a more familiar and approachable game.</blockquote>

Verification