WFRP3 in playtest..are they going the way of the MMO?

[JRRNeiklot]

There's nothing stopping you from being a Bright Wizard or Dwarven Slayer now. You may be a rat catcher at first, but you can eventually become a wizard or slayer. Think of those classes like the prestige classes of 3e. That's the beauty of the game, even a lowly rat catcher can rise to the great heights of dying in glorious battle.http: //www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png

 

[Emirikol]

Because when you put "Warhammer" on the front of your book, you should be making a "Warhammer" game. When a Warhammer minis fan sees the Warhammer rpg, it is perfectly reasonable for him to assume he will be playing something like a Bright Wizard or a dwarven Slayer. The minis game was there first, and is FAR bigger and more popular than the rpg ever will be. When you start talking to somebody about Warhammer, most people will immediately think of the minis, and rightfully so. Frankly, what they should do is fork the game. Take the Warhammer setting and make an actual Warhammer rpg for it.

Interesting take on the matter. If they wanted epic level characters at level one however, I'd just use D&D instead of WFRP (see my house rulebook on the matter).

After taking a look at the early WFB scenarios such as "Slann whatnot" and Web of Eldaw don't appear to require epic powered characters. So, historically, WFRP 1e and WFB do not intend for there to be EPIC characters in play even though in the WFB game some of the solo minatures are in fact epic characters.

jh





..

 

[Rykion]

Because when you put "Warhammer" on the front of your book, you should be making a "Warhammer" game. When a Warhammer minis fan sees the Warhammer rpg, it is perfectly reasonable for him to assume he will be playing something like a Bright Wizard or a dwarven Slayer. The minis game was there first, and is FAR bigger and more popular than the rpg ever will be. When you start talking to somebody about Warhammer, most people will immediately think of the minis, and rightfully so.

WFRP is false advertising in the extreme. The characters you play are nothing like the characters from the source material. They arent' even like the characters on the front cover of the book. .

The WFRP rules specifically mention you can choose your starting career if the GM allows it. If your GM forces you to roll on the career chart and you don't like it, your beef should be with the GM not the game. Dwarven Troll Slayer is in fact a starting career. Wizards start out as apprentices, but any GM who wants to start a high powered game can easily have the players start characters in their third career. I like being able to play a character from their beginning rather than starting them as kings of the battlefield that have little room to advance.

Hero level characters are few and far between in the Warhammer novels. The miniatures game is full of units that aren't heroes.

My only gripe with WFRP is they've never really fleshed out the elves and dwarfs.

 

[Doodles]

I don't know about "MMOs" and the like, but there's nothing wrong with WFRPG2. Why these guys would want to change it this drastically just blows my mind. *shrug*

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Because when you put "Warhammer" on the front of your book, you should be making a "Warhammer" game. When a Warhammer minis fan sees the Warhammer rpg, it is perfectly reasonable for him to assume he will be playing something like a Bright Wizard or a dwarven Slayer. The minis game was there first, and is FAR bigger and more popular than the rpg ever will be.

I'm a Warhammer novels fan, I have never played a Warhammer mini game and will never play one.

IMO, WHFRPG 2 was an excellent at presenting the world in the Warhammer novels.

From what I have gathered by following various Warhammer forums, there are a great number of Warhammer fans who have given up the upgrade cycle of the minis rules edition after edition, but continue to by novels long afterward. Is it inconceivable that GW earns more income off the novels lines than it does off the minis? If that is the case, it makes sense that they would rather have WHFRPG's evoke the flavor of the novels than the flavor of the minis game.

 

[Henry]

I don't know about "MMOs" and the like, but there's nothing wrong with WFRPG2. Why these guys would want to change it this drastically just blows my mind. *shrug*

Oh, I can see it pretty clearly, and it comes down to profit, I imagine - after GW's license transfer to FFG, my suspicion is that the RPG line, as cool as that game is, is just NOT making a sustainable profit, and therefore needs a shot in the arm.

Now, whether this is the right way to go, or if it turns out to be a "shot in the head" instead of a "shot in the arm," is another topic. I would be disappointed to see WFRP3 be a scaled-up version of Heroquest, because it means the death of original WFRP as an in-print game, without an OGL option like D&D3 had, but by the same token I wouldn't be too upset, because heroquest's basic model was an excellent "pass the afternoon" game, in the line of Descent(?) or similar games.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It must be a joke. I mean, really. Otherwise, they'd be doing pretty much exactly what. . .

OK, yes. Maybe they will.

Time to invest in 2e, perhaps? Hmm. . .